City of Portland Invasive Plant Strategy In Response to Resolution 36360

October 30, 2008 Table of Contents

ACRONYMS ...... I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... II CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...... 1

1.1 WHAT IS AN INVASIVE PLANT? ...... 1 1.2 HOW DID INVASIVE PLANTS GET HERE? ...... 2 1.3 RESOLUTION 36360 ...... 2 1.3.1 City of Portland Resolution 36360...... 2 1.3.2 Strategy Report ...... 3 1.3.3 Acreage of City Owned Open Space and Estimates of Invasive Plant Species ...... 3 1.4 WHY ARE INVASIVE SPECIES A PROBLEM?...... 4 1.4.1 Watershed Health...... 4 1.4.2 Wildfire Risk...... 8 1.4.3 Stormwater Interception...... 10 1.4.4 Green Infrastructure ...... 10 1.4.5 Economics ...... 11 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CITY PROGRAMS ...... 13 CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL ...... 15

3.1 REGIONAL EFFORTS AND CITY COORDINATION ...... 15 3.2 REVIEW OF INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ...... 15 3.3 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ...... 16 CHAPTER 4: TEN YEAR GOALS ...... 17

4.1 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT...... 17 4.2 OUTREACH,EDUCATION, AND COORDINATION...... 17 4.3 INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT...... 17 4.4 INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL ...... 18 CHAPTER 5: PROPOSED THREE YEAR WORK PLAN ...... 19

5.1 POLICY AND PROGRAMS ...... 19 5.1.1 Policy ...... 19 5.1.2 Programs to Enhance Public Land Management ...... 20 5.1.3 Programs for Public and Private Lands ...... 21 5.1.4 Enforcement ...... 22 5.2 OUTREACH AND EDUCATION ...... 22 5.2.1 Develop Media Strategy...... 23 5.2.2 Technical and Financial Assistance to Landowners...... 23 5.2.3 Publication and Outreach Materials...... 25 5.2.4 Lead by Example...... 26 5.3 COORDINATION...... 27 5.4 ASSESSMENT (INVENTORY AND CONTROL PRIORITIES) ...... 28 5.4.1 Inventory ...... 28 5.4.2 Control Priorities...... 29 5.4.3 Annual Reporting ...... 31 5.4.4 Invasive Animal Strategy...... 32 5.4.5 Research...... 32 5.5 CONTROL AND RESTORATION ...... 32 5.5.1 Methods...... 32 5.5.2 Development of Species-specific Management Plans ...... 33 5.5.3 Control Efforts ...... 34 5.5.4 Site Restoration Following Control Efforts...... 36 CHAPTER 6: COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES...... 38

6.1 COSTS ...... 38 6.1.1 Staffing Costs ...... 39 6.2 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES...... 41 6.2.1 Existing and Future Operating Funds...... 41 6.2.2 Ratepayer and System Development Charges...... 41 6.2.3 Tax Revenue and Incentive Based Program...... 42 6.2.4 Grants ...... 42 6.2.5 Revenue from Mitigation Fees or Fines for Violations ...... 43 6.2.6 Summary of Potential Funding Sources...... 43 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ...... 45 CHAPTER 8: REFERENCES...... 46 LIST OF APPENDICES:...... 48 Appendix A: City of Portland Bureau of Planning Invasive Species Designations List Appendix B: City of Portland Resolution 36360 Appendix C: Summary of Report Development Appendix D: Summary of City and Regional Invasive Plant Species Programs Appendix E: Photos Appendix F: Tables Appendix G: Figures Appendix H: Memo: Use of Goats for Invasive Plant Species Control ACRONYMS

BDS City of Portland Bureau of Development Services BES City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services BLM Bureau of Land Management BOP City of Portland Bureau of Planning CIP Capital Improvement Project CWMA Cooperative Weed Management Association CWS Clean Water Services DSL Department of State Lands EDRR Early Detection Rapid Response EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMSWCD East Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District EQUIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTE Full-time equivalent FY Fiscal year IPM Integrated Pest Management NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency NRCS Natural Resources Conservation District OAN Oregon Association of Nurseries ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation OISC Oregon Invasive Species Council OMF City of Portland Office of Management and Finance OPB Oregon Public Broadcasting OPRD Oregon Parks and Recreation Department OSU Oregon State University PDC Portland Development Commission PDOT Portland Office of Transportation PP&R Portland Parks and Recreation PWMP Portland Watershed Management Plan SDC System development charges SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District TNC The Nature Conservancy TRLC Three Rivers Land Conservancy WES Water Environment Services WMSWCD West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District

Page I Executive Summary

The invasive plant strategy was developed in response to City Council order 36360 which was adopted in November 2005. This order requires the City to develop a three year work plan and ten year goals that integrate invasive plant management into existing City programs and reduce invasive plant coverage within the City. To do this, existing City programs were evaluated and compared to invasive plant management programs at other agencies to identify gaps in vegetation management at the City of Portland.

This report describes invasive plant management program elements that should be added to existing City programs to maintain existing high quality natural areas and to remove invasive plants in more heavily infested areas. It includes cost estimates for total eradication of invasive plants within the City and outlines possible management priorities. The final chapter describes the cost of implementing alternative management priorities and potential funding sources for these programs.

The introduction, Chapter 1, defines invasive plants and other terminology used to describe plants, such as native, weed, nuisance, and prohibited. The introduction also describes why invasive plants are a problem, and describes the extent of invasive plant coverage within City limits.

Chapter 2 summarizes existing City programs that relate to invasive plant management. For example, the Bureau of Planning maintains lists that define native species and there are codes related to nuisance and prohibited plants; Portland Parks and Recreation has an inventory of vegetation health on park lands; and several bureaus manage vegetation and conduct public outreach. Greater detail about these programs is provided in Appendix D.

To determine gaps in our existing invasive plant management, several agencies were contacted to research their invasive plant management programs. These results are summarized Chapter 3 and detailed in Appendix D.

The ten year goals outlined in Chapter 4 are dependent upon adequate funding sources. These goals are the foundation of the strategy for reducing invasive plant coverage within Portland.

The three year work plan outlined in Chapter 5 describes how the City will start to achieve the 10 year goals. It includes proposed policy changes, additional education and outreach programs, ways to improve interbureau and interagency coordination, assessment (inventory and control priorities), and invasive plant control methods and programs.

Chapter 6 estimates the cost of total eradication of invasive species within City limits. Since this is very expensive, Chapter 6 also estimates the cost of implementing the proposed three year work plan and ten year goals.

Chapter 7 concludes the report with a summarized list of the proposed additional program elements and how those will be coordinated throughout the City.

Page II Invasive Plant Strategy Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 What is an Invasive Plant?

Invasive plants are those species that spread at such a rate that they cause harm to human health, the environment, and/or the economy. The City of Portland Bureau of Planning (BOP) has developed lists for native, nuisance, and prohibited plants. Most of the species on the City’s nuisance list and all of the species on its prohibited list would also be considered invasive plants. A native plant is a species that was likely found historically (prior to European settlement) in the Portland area. Nuisance plants are considered harmful to humans and plants, and have a tendency to dominate plant communities. The five Native: Species that were likely species on the City’s prohibited plant list pose a serious found historically (prior to threat to the health and vitality of native plant and European settlement) in the Portland area. animal communities. Species on the nuisance and prohibited plant lists cannot be used in reviewed Nuisance: Species that are landscape designs within City limits (according to City considered harmful to humans Code Chapter 33.248.030.D.4). As part of this invasive and other plants that have a plant strategy, the plants on the nuisance and tendency to dominate plant prohibited plant lists have been ranked according to communities. their level of invasiveness. These draft rankings are included in Appendix A. These rankings would need to Invasive: Species that spread go through a formal City planning review process as a at such a rate that they cause revision to the nuisance and prohibited plant lists before harm to human health, the becoming finalized. environment, and/or the economy.

In general, most invasive plants are non-native species; “Weed”: A plant that grows however, not all non-native plants are invasive. For where it is not wanted. example, there are lots of agricultural and ornamental plants that are not native to Oregon, but they are not escaping cultivation or landscapes. Some examples would include potatoes, tomatoes, rosemary, lilacs, blueberry, raspberry, Forsythia, Japanese maple, and jasmine.

Other terms, such as “weed”, might be used to describe plants and this classification depends upon the perception of the viewer. In other words, what one person considers a weed might be a hardy horticultural plant to another person. For example, Menzies larkspur (Delphinium menziesii) is a pretty flowering plant that is native to Oregon. However, it is also poisonous to livestock so farmers might call it a weed, whereas native plant enthusiasts might not draw the same conclusion. Therefore, a ‘weed’ is defined as a plant that is growing somewhere that it is not wanted. In order to manage plant communities, terminology must be defined and plant lists, such as those provided in Appendix A, are often used to prioritize management efforts. There are times in this report when the term ‘weed’ might be used interchangeably with the term ‘invasive’ when describing existing documents or programs.

Page 1 of 47 1.2 How Did Invasive Plants Get Here?

Most invasive plants arrived in Oregon through intentional introductions; however, in most cases, the uncontrolled spread was not anticipated. For example, Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparia) was introduced in about 1950 as an ornamental plant and soil stabilizer. It was originally cultivated for propagation; however, the unintended spread of this plant has made it undesirable today. The number of new introductions has increased consistently with global trade and travel. Most invasive plant introduction pathways are human induced; the plants and their seeds travel on cars, trains, heavy equipment, boats, shoes, and pets. The plants tend to become established along transportation corridors such as roads, utility easements, trails, parks, and ports of entry. Humans also introduce new invasive plants through the nursery trade and gardening. Invasive plants are also transported through ecological pathways such as wind, wildlife, streams, and other waterbodies. Land management practices such as mowing or constant soil disturbance also facilitate the establishment of and persistence of invasive plants.

1.3 Resolution 36360

1.3.1 City of Portland Resolution 36360

On November 7, 2005, the City of Portland held a Town Hall on Invasive Species. During this meeting, the City invited local experts to present information about invasive plant species. The content presented at this meeting established the need for a long- term strategy for managing invasive plants. As a follow up, City Council passed Resolution 36360 which requires the City to develop a three year work plan and ten year goals to reduce noxious weeds within the City. A copy of this resolution is included in Appendix B.

At an April 2007 meeting, Portland Parks and Recreation (PP&R) and Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) staff decided to interpret the term “noxious weeds” (as used in the resolution) to have a more general meaning of invasive plants rather than limit this program to those species designated as noxious weeds by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). Noxious: The City of Portland The ODA list contains fewer species than the City of interprets this term, as used Portland nuisance and prohibited lists and many of the in the Resolution, similarly to plants on the ODA list are specific to the east side of the the terms “nuisance” and State. Therefore, it seemed more appropriate to work with “prohibited”. the existing locally approved nuisance and prohibited lists to define what is invasive and problematic within the City of Portland.

Appendix C contains the meeting agenda, attendees, and summary from the April 2007 meeting.

Page 2 of 47 1.3.2 Strategy Report

In April 2007, BES and PP&R staff met to develop a core working group comprised of one to two staff from each bureau that manages land within the City. This strategy report was developed by working with the following core team members (or their designate):

x Jennifer Goodridge, Invasive Plant Coordinator, BES Watershed Group x Paul Ketcham, Program Manager, West Side Creeks and Lost Streams Watershed Program, BES Watershed Group x Mitch Bixby, Intern, West Side Creeks and Lost Streams Watershed Program, BES Watershed Group x James Allison (Lynn Barlow and Darian Santer), Program Manager, BES Revegetation Team x Dick Robbins, Water Resources Program Manager, Water Bureau x Rich Rice, Horticulturist, Water Bureau x Kristy Bransen, Senior Project Program Specialist, Portland Development Commission (PDC) x John Reed, Horticulturist, City Nature Program, PP&R x Mark Griswold Wilson, Restoration Ecologist, City Nature Program, PP&R x Mike Hayakawa, Planning Supervisor, Environmental and Greenway Review Team, Bureau of Development Services (BDS) x Diana Holuka, Property Acquisition and Services Manager, Office of Management and Finance (OMF) x Mike Boyle (Marty Mitchell), Senior Public Works Supervisor, Street Cleaning Division, Bureau of Maintenance, Office of Transportation (PDOT) x Chris Scarzello, City Planner, BOP x Roberta Jortner, Supervising Planner, BOP

Between April 2007 and December 2007, several meetings were held with individual team members and two meetings were held with the entire group. Appendix C contains agendas and meeting summaries from the two core team meetings. In addition to meetings, documents were routed through email for review and comments from the team were incorporated.

The outcome of these meetings provided the basis for the three year work plan and ten year goals for invasive plant species management that are presented in this strategy report.

1.3.3 Acreage of City Owned Open Space and Estimates of Invasive Plant Species

The first step in developing a management strategy is to assess the existing problem. PP&R has conducted vegetation surveys on 7,800 acres of natural area parkland. Their field methods were designed to identify vegetation community characteristics such as dominant and invasive plant species, management concerns, and overall ecological health to inform park management and citywide natural resource planning. The detailed

Page 3 of 47 survey methods are provided online at: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=154761.

On the 7,800 acres of PP&R land surveyed, invasive plants cover approximately 13- 40% of the acreage (data was collected in ranges). There are approximately 32,162 acres of forest, woodland, shrubland, and herbaceous vegetation patches within the City (BOP 2006). Thus, if the PP&R data are extrapolated to estimate the amount of invasive plants that are likely to be present within vegetated areas in the City, then there would approximately 4,181 - 12,864 acres of invasive plant coverage within City limits1. The PP&R and BOP studies are further described in Appendix D.

1.4 Why Are Invasive Species a Problem?

Invasive species impact watershed health, change fire dynamics, reduce stormwater interception, and reduce the value of green infrastructure. Through development and other landscape disturbances, humans have altered the species composition of vegetation communities in remaining natural areas. This chapter discusses these problems as well as the economic consequences of invasive species.

1.4.1 Watershed Health

Invasive species impact watershed health by degrading water quality, reducing biodiversity, altering habitat quality, reducing tree cover, and changing soil characteristics. This section further describes each of these five problems, with a focus on the impacts of invasive plants.

1.4.1.1 Water Quality

Invasive plants impact water quality because they reduce soil stability and reduce canopy diversity, which can result in increased erosion. A diverse native plant community has a diverse below ground root structure that includes many species with fibrous root systems that provide soil binding capacity. When the groundcover is dominated by non-natives such as ivy or clematis, there is very little root structure that binds the soils. A forest dominated by native species has three strata consisting of trees, shrubs, and herbs that overlap and effectively intercept rainfall reducing the amount of water reaching the soils. A non-native dominated area typically lacks one or more of these canopy layers, thus reducing rainfall interception by the vegetation. Therefore, large areas dominated by invasive plants are more likely to erode during high rainfall or flood events than areas with a diverse understory of trees and shrubs with complex rooting structures and multiple canopy layers to intercept rainfall. Erosion carries sediment to streams and increases stream turbidity levels.

1 This acreage is a conservative estimate and most likely an underestimate of the amount of invasive plant cover within the City because the PP&R data that estimate the range of invasive plant cover contain large areas of high quality habitat within Forest Park. In addition, the BOP Vegetation Mapping Project referenced above only mapped vegetated areas greater than 0.5 acre and within a certain radius of Greenways, Environmental Zones, and Special Habitat Areas.

Page 4 of 47 A vegetated slope provides erosion control because plants reduce the erosive forces by intercepting rainfall and shielding the ground from their impact. Plant roots also increase the roughness of the ground surface and increase the permeability of the soil leading to increased infiltration capacity. Deeply rooted trees anchor surface soils into deeper strata and species with fibrous root systems reinforce soils in ways similar to placing steel to reinforce concrete. A multi-strata (herb, shrub, tree) community of native vegetation provides more effective erosion control than non-native dominated landscapes, because trees intercept rainfall and a more diverse above ground community creates a more diverse below ground rooting structure. In addition, non- native species such as English ivy (Hedera helix), grow like a vine across the soil surface. Thus, throughout much of the area covered by English ivy, there are limited root structures to anchor the soils, making these areas prone to erosion and shallow landslides (Myers 1993).

Another way that invasive plants can alter water quality is by reducing streamside vegetated cover, which reduces shade and increases stream temperatures. Invasive plants, such as Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) or Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), form monocultures (areas entirely dominated by one species) which prevents tree establishment and provides less shade cover than trees (Photo 1 Appendix E). Although knotweed grows to about 6-8 feet tall, it does not provide the streamside shade of a mature native tree such as cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) which can grow up to 80 feet tall. Photo 2 depicts an area where the BES Revegetation Team is currently treating a patch of knotweed. It is important to treat this species before it becomes a large infestation because the plant reproduces from below ground structures as well as stem and root fragments, making it very difficult to eradicate.

Another example of invasive species limiting trees and shade in the riparian area is demonstrated in Photos 3-6. Photo 3 depicts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) building in the Columbia Slough watershed in 1996. Note the dense blackberry growth, the culvert visible in the foreground, and the buildings and tall trees in the background of the photo. Photo 4 depicts the same site following blackberry removal during the summer of 1996. The increased visibility of the building and the culvert document the extent of blackberry removal. This site was maintained for five years and replanted with native species by the BES Revegetation Team. Photo 5 depicts the same site in 2001. Five years after the initial blackberry removal, the native cottonwood and willow have established to form a thicket along the stream bank. Photo 6 depicts the same site in 2007, demonstrating that the native vegetation is now as tall as the trees in the background. The building is no longer visible and these trees provide shade to the stream that would never have been provided by the blackberry thicket that formerly covered these banks. Cooler stream temperatures result in improved water quality conditions by increasing dissolved oxygen levels and limiting algae growth.

Invasive plants in the riparian area can also impact water quality if herbicides are applied incorrectly in an attempt to control these plants near streams or wetlands. In the blackberry example above, the Revegetation Team completed most of their blackberry removal with mechanical methods such as chainsaws. Licensed applicators

Page 5 of 47 are also very careful to use water- and salmon-safe herbicides applied during dry periods without wind. However, many private property owners may not be as informed about the proper use of herbicides for invasive removal in riparian areas. If Roundup®, a systemic broad spectrum herbicide, or other herbicides enter the water, they kill all vegetation they come into contact with, including any native species present in the water column and riparian area.

1.4.1.2 Biodiversity

Invasive plant species spread so quickly that they can create monocultures by displacing native plants or by preventing their growth and establishment. When one plant species creates a monoculture, this decreases the overall plant community structure. For example, a native forest that has three vegetation layers of herbs, shrubs, and trees, each layer with multiple species, creates a more diverse plant community. When an invasive plant, such as garlic mustard (Allaria petiolata), creates a monoculture that dominates the forest understory, then this reduces the number of native species present in the understory layer. Thus, invasive plants reduce overall native plant species diversity and result in biological pollution. Changes in plant community diversity often lead to reductions in the quality and quantity of fish and wildlife habitat. Non-native species are one of the leading causes for species listing under the Endangered Species Act because they are second only to habitat loss in the list of threats to native biological diversity (Jenkins 2002).

A healthy native plant community serves many important functions: x Provides habitat (e.g., food, shelter, refuge, nesting materials) for native wildlife and preserves critical habitat for rare, threatened and endangered animals and plants; x Enhances air and water quality by trapping greenhouse gases and airborne particulates and by filtering sediments and pollutants from runoff before they enter streams and aquifers; x Stabilizes stream banks and hillside slopes, and dissipates erosive forces; ameliorates the local microclimate, and reduces water and energy needs; and x Provides scenic, recreational and educational values which, in turn, enhance Portland’s livability.

Native plants are part of the region’s natural heritage. Photo 7 depicts an area within Forest Park dominated by native plants unique to a northwestern coniferous forest ecosystem.

Photo 8 depicts a monoculture of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) that dominates the understory at Stephens Creek in southwest Portland. This dense grass is limiting the establishment of native trees and shrubs in the understory. Ongoing and future revegetation efforts conducted by volunteers, PP&R, and BES are working to increase the native understory diversity at this site by installing native trees and shrubs and removing reed canarygrass around the new plantings.

Page 6 of 47 1.4.1.3 Habitat

When the plant community structure is simplified by an invasive plant monoculture, then the fish and wildlife habitat provided by that area is also reduced. A diverse plant community provides a variety of food sources, different types of cover, and a variety of resting and nesting areas for fish and wildlife. This variety of food and cover provides more niches in which more animal species and larger populations can reside. Photo 9 depicts a monoculture of Himalayan blackberry that dominates the understory of Mt. Scott Creek in Clackamas County. This is a fish-bearing stream that has a forested canopy; however, much of the understory habitat diversity is limited due to blackberry coverage.

In addition, many of our native wildlife species are dependent upon a specific plant for food and cover. Invasive plants often outcompete and displace native plants. One example is the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), which is dependent upon Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus spp. Kincaidii) as a host plant for the butterfly larvae. Both Fender’s blue butterfly (endangered) and Kincaid’s lupine (threatened) are federally listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act due to habitat loss, changes in land use, and habitat encroachment by invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry, tall oatgrass, (Arrhenatherum elatius), and false brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum). False brome distribution is currently limited to about three sites within the City of Portland. However, if it is not controlled now while the distribution is limited, then it could form monocultures such as the one depicted in Photo 10 which was taken near the Carver boat ramp on the Clackamas River. Once false brome monocultures become established, they are very difficult to control. These invasive species monocultures limit the presence of native plant species which then limits the native wildlife populations.

Most of the time, invasive plants reduce the abundance and diversity of native wildlife by displacing the native plant community. However, some invasive plant monocultures and their resulting simplified habitat also provide habitat for non-native wildlife. For example, house sparrows (Passer domesitcus), a non-native bird, often nest and take winter shelter in patches of Himalayan blackberry which is an invasive shrub. The increase in non-native wildlife can also lead to reductions in native wildlife abundance or diversity if these species compete for components of the same niche, such as cover or food.

1.4.1.4 Tree Cover

Forest canopy covers a significant percentage of public and private open spaces within the City of Portland. These forests would typically regenerate naturally and provide on- going low cost ecosystem services such as improved community livability, stormwater interception, wind barriers, and temperature moderation. However, invasive cover in the shrub and groundcover layer prevents natural forest regeneration processes. Tree cover in the forest canopy also addresses many of the mentioned watershed health issues like erosion and landslide control, stormwater management and groundwater

Page 7 of 47 recharge, and riparian area stability. Invasive plants can reduce the amount of tree cover by preventing the future establishment of trees, by causing trees to fall down prematurely, or by reducing the growth rate of trees. For example, a recent study from Harvard documented that garlic mustard reduces the presence of soil fungi and thereby reduces the establishment of tree seedlings (Stinson et al. 2006). Unfortunately, garlic mustard monocultures are starting to become established on the streambanks and roadsides of northwest Portland (Photo 11). If these garlic mustard plants are allowed to spread into the adjacent forests, they have the potential to create monocultures in the understory as they have in the mid-west and east coast (Photo 12).

Dense cover by Himalayan blackberry can also prevent the establishment or reduce the growth rate of trees because it prevents sunlight from reaching seedlings or saplings. Photo 13 depicts Himalayan blackberry that dominates sections of the north escarpment in Portland. Trees will not likely become established in these patches even though they are near native shrubs and trees that will produce seedlings. The blackberry will need to be removed so that light can reach the native seedlings. Follow up blackberry removal would also be necessary until the native species become taller than the blackberry thicket.

Dense ivy or clematis cover in the tree canopy can weight down trees making them more susceptible to blowdowns and decreasing their growth rates by shading the leaves. Loss of trees would exacerbate impacts on water quality, biodiversity and habitat. Photo 14 depicts a fallen tree covered with ivy; the increased weight in the canopy and reduced rate of photosynthesis due to ivy coverage likely contributed to the death of the tree.

1.4.1.5 Soil Health

Invasive plants can alter the soil through allelopathy, which is the process of releasing chemicals that alter the soil chemistry and soil fungal processes. One example is the tree of heaven (Ailanthes altissima) which releases chemicals into the soil that reduce the ability of other plants to grow and establish below the tree canopy. Photo 15 depicts a tree of heaven in north Portland where saplings are spreading throughout the slope. This site could become a forested overstory dominated by tree of heaven which produce prolific amounts of seed and displaces our native forested species such as oak (Quercus spp.) and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). Garlic mustard also releases chemicals which alter the fungal processes in the soil and may reduce the ability of trees to establish in the surrounding area (as depicted in Photos 11 and 12).

1.4.2 Wildfire Risk

Portland’s natural ecosystems have been highly modified by humans. Historically, Native Americans regularly introduced fire in western Oregon to facilitate harvest of herbaceous species such as tar weed (Madia spp.) and camas (Camassia spp) bulbs, and to provide habitat for grazing animals. These fires swept through the landscape clearing grasses, shrubs and fallen braches but leaving larger fire-resistant trees and more open forest. As the City of Portland grew and Willamette Valley lands were

Page 8 of 47 converted to agriculture, European settlers wanted protection from fires so fire suppression has been practiced since the mid 1800’s.

Fire cessation and additional settlement further disturbed the natural area landscapes within Portland. The riparian and oak woodlands along the banks of the Willamette River bluffs were cleared to fuel steamship boilers and build roads, Forest Park was logged during the last century, and Powell Butte was cleared for cattle grazing. Now deciduous trees grow in amongst the evergreens in these large forested natural areas. While these mixed evergreen-deciduous forests are much less fire prone than the historic forests that were dominated by conifers, the risk of wildfire at the urban wildland interface (at the boundary between the natural areas and development) has increased.

Oregon ecosystems have evolved with fire over thousands of years and are vegetated with fire-prone and fire-adapted native species. Moist western Oregon forests and woodlands burn less frequently than the cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) dominated high desert sage and pine forest ecosystems of eastern Oregon. However, western Oregon fires tend to be large, intense events that remove entire forests rather than removing the understory and thinning the area to a few fire resistant large trees. Human activities have increased the risk of severe wildfire by altering the burn interval and/or by favoring the success of flammable invasive species like Himalayan blackberry, Scot’s broom (Cysitus scoparia), clematis (Clematis vitalba), and reed canary grass. Fire suppression, development, agricultural, and forestry practices have all changed the landscape by increasing the severity and frequency of disturbance. Constant disturbance favors the establishment of invasive species. Before on-going active restoration work began in the 1990’s, many of Portland’s natural area landscapes were dominated by non-native and invasive species. Increased populations of some invasive species have resulted in an increase in hazardous wildfire fuels. Scientific evidence indicates that many western forests have accumulated hazardous wildfire fuels reaching levels that far exceed those found under “natural” or pre-European settlement conditions. These unprecedented fuel levels create the potential for fires that are more intense than those that might have occurred historically (Franklin & Agee 2003).

In Portland, hazardous wildfire fuels have accumulated in natural areas and open spaces with high concentrations in utility right of ways, at the interface between natural areas and development, and in open spaces where vegetation is not actively managed. In many of these areas, blackberry, clematis, and other weeds form “fuel ladders” which facilitate the ability of a fire to travel into the tree canopy of conifers. Once the fire moves into the tree canopy, it is more likely to spread throughout the canopy. From the tree canopy, it can jump further and possibly shower nearby homes with flaming embers. The presence of invasive species makes the fire hotter, more difficult to control, and more likely to continue to spread. Photo 16, which was taken at Oaks Bottom in southeast Portland, depicts how much dead biomass clematis plants add to a forested canopy. In the fall, this dead biomass can fuel a fire by making it hotter and causing it to spread more rapidly through the canopy, and once in the canopy, more likely to reach nearby homes.

Page 9 of 47 In the last ten years, two significant wildfires have occurred on the Willamette Bluffs in north Portland. Predominance of invasive species increased the duration and intensity of these fires and led to greater property damage and risk to citizens and firefighters. Similar landscapes still exist in the Powell Butte and Forest Park areas.

Photos 17-19 depict the success of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funded fire reduction project implemented at Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge. Photos 17 and 18 depict the slopes that have not been treated and are dominated by clematis, Himalayan blackberry, and ivy. Photo 18 depicts the slopes that have been treated by this program (these trees are winter dormant, not dead). Invasive species have been removed mechanically with follow up treatments for the last five years. Photo 19 depicts the boundary between these two treatment areas. Small fires have since occurred within the invasive plant control areas. Landscape changes due to the fire reduction project created lower fire durations, intensity, and subsequent damages.

1.4.3 Stormwater Interception

Invasive plants alter vegetation cover types which can result in reduced stormwater interception by trees. When invasive plants form monocultures, they often preclude the establishment of native vegetation and tree canopy. For example, dense Himalayan blackberry or reed canarygrass may prevent the tree establishment, and ivy and clematis may remove trees from the canopy by killing them.

Photos 20-22 document this scenario at a site in the Beaverton-Hillsdale area. Photo 20 documents the complete coverage by Himalayan blackberry. Photo 21 depicts the same site when the blackberry has been removed and has been recently planted with native species. Note that in Photo 20, the site was so covered with invasive plants that the stream channel was not visible. Photo 22 depicts the site approximately three years later and trees are becoming established on the stream banks. As these trees grow taller, they will intercept more rainwater than the previous invasive plant monoculture. More importantly, this site would have remained dominated by Himalayan blackberry without the intervention of the BES Revegetation Team. Invasive plant removal and native planting can restore sites to forested cover which increases rain and stormwater interception throughout the City.

1.4.4 Green Infrastructure

The City of Portland has invested in green infrastructure that includes parks and natural areas, trees, engineered facilities (eco-roofs, bioswales, stormwater facilities, and fish passage structures), and waterways such as rivers, streams, lakes, floodplains, and wetlands. The next step is to invest in the ongoing maintenance and management of this infrastructure. Their viability and functionality is somewhat dependent upon the type of vegetation communities present. Therefore, invasive plant management should be a priority for ensuring a return on our investment. Without this additional financial input, our green infrastructure will continue to be dominated by invasive plants similar to the ivy that is so prevalent in northwest Portland (Photo 23). Protecting intact or recently-stabilized green infrastructure is an order of magnitude less expensive than the

Page 10 of 47 slow, costly process of reestablishing a forest that has blown down or failed due to a landslide.

1.4.5 Economics

Invasive plants are not just a problem in Portland. They are being battled at the regional, state, and federal level. Invasive plants damage the environment and result in lost resource potential. Invasive plants cost the U.S. economy $13 billion dollars annually (Westbrooks 1998 as cited in OISC 2005). These costs are primarily due to losses in crop and livestock production, control efforts, damage to property values, and reduced export potential. These costs are passed on to consumers through higher costs in the agricultural products that they buy in the marketplace. For example, any cost that a farmer spends for starthistle (Centaurea solsitialis) control in the pastures is reflected in the price of beef. The ODA estimates that 21 invasive plant species in Oregon have reduced personal income by $83 million dollars per year (ODA 2000).

According to most of the literature on the subject, the most cost-effective use of funds for invasive species control and prevention are in the areas of exclusion and early detection. It has been repeatedly shown that when an invasive species becomes permanently established, a major financial commitment has to be undertaken for its control and potential eradication. In addition, the effectiveness of control efforts and the potential for complete eradication are both reduced once the species has spread beyond small patches.

In a study of 12 different invasive species, the median cost of early detection, control, and eradication was $1 dollar for every $17 dollars of future potential damage that would have been caused by that species (U.S. Congress 1993). A similar study was conducted in Oregon and ODA found that every $1 dollar spent today on early detection and control, saves up to $34 in future cost impacts (ODA 2000).

Eradication of invasive species is most likely to occur when detection is made early, and infestations are less than 2.4 acres (Rejmanek and Pitcairn 2002). When noxious weeds become established and form large, widespread infestations, then species- specific biological control may be the only realistic long-term option for controlling further outbreaks.

In 1995, a new invasive weed (Purple starthistle, Centaurea calcitrapa) was detected in less than ten acres of Clackamas County pastureland. This noxious weed has the biological potential to spread to over 1.5 million acres of productive agricultural lands in Oregon, but an aggressive eradication program was initiated after early detection at a cost of $3,558 per year, and has been very effective at containing the infestation. If purple starthistle was allowed to exploit its biological potential and left unchecked, it is estimated that economic impacts to the state could reach $12 million dollars per year (ODA 2005). This project clearly demonstrates the benefit of early detection and control of new invaders.

Page 11 of 47 Another strong argument for early detection and rapid response is illustrated by a cattle ranch in Klamath County that suffered a severe loss in property value due to a heavy infestation of leafy spurge (Euphorbia escula L.). This deep rooted, perennial herb grows in dense stands, crowds out most other vegetation, and is unpalatable to livestock. As a result, it can quickly reduce the carrying capacity of productive rangeland, just as it did to the Taylor Ranch. This 1,360 acre ranch went from a value of $125-$150 per acre before the leafy spurge infestation, to a value of $22 per acre when the ranch was ultimately abandoned due to non-productivity. It was ultimately sold for $27,500. This translates to an 83% loss in property value for the ranch. This might not seem like an urban problem; however, invasive plant management and the resulting agricultural land devaluation is directly translated into higher food costs at the grocery stores.

Page 12 of 47 Chapter 2: Existing City Programs

The City has several existing programs that manage vegetation and control invasive plant populations; however, they are nestled within each City bureau that has land management oversight. Therefore, it is difficult to point to any one budget or staff member who can explain existing City practices related to invasive plant removal. This chapter and Table 1 (Appendix F) summarize the existing programs and policies related to invasive plant management in the City; more complete program descriptions are included in Appendix D.

There are ten bureaus within the City that have public land management responsibilities (see box at right). The Police and Fire bureaus own limited open space so these two bureaus were not City bureaus with public land included in the development of the invasive plant management responsibilities: strategy report. BOP and BDS don’t own or x BES manage land; however, they create and implement x PP&R policies that affect land management so they were x PDC included in the strategy development. OMF only x PDOT operates the buildings on City owned land; however, x Water Bureau Portland Fire Bureau they maintain the list of land ownership by bureau x Portland Police Bureau so they were also involved in the development of x x BOP the invasive plant strategy. x BDS x OMF Figures 1-5 (Appendix G) document the location of City owned land. The different hatch patterns indicate which bureau owns that parcel. The City owns approximately 10,400 acres of land within the 92,620 acre urban growth boundary. This acreage does not include the acreage of other public landowners within the City limits because this data is difficult to accurately quantify and there are numerous public landowners such as Metro, Oregon Health Sciences University, the Port of Portland, and Oregon State Parks.

The BES Revegetation Program removes invasive plants and revegetates 70 new acres each year. They manage sites for five years to remove invasive plants and re-establish native vegetation. In any given year, the BES Revegetation Program manages up to 1,200 acres. Between 1996-2002, this program removed invasives and established native vegetation on over 1,500 acres within the City. The BES Watershed Program conducts habitat enhancement projects which also includes invasive species removal and revegetation.

The PP&R City Nature Program manages over 8,000 acres of natural area and hybrid park land within the City for recreational uses and habitat protection. Approximately one full-time equivalent (FTE) staff person is dedicated to invasive plant removal for the 8,000 acres. PP&R has inventoried the plant species cover in approximately 7,800 acres of natural areas within the City. Figure 6 (Appendix G) depicts the health category ranking and distribution throughout the City. PP&R staff plan, design, and implement restoration and revegetation projects. Project components include invasive

Page 13 of 47 plant removal, volunteer service learning, and stewardship work. PP&R has prioritized invasive plant removal through the “Protect the Best” and the Wildfire Risk Reduction programs. Both PP&R and BES have outreach programs designed to get schools and community volunteers involved in invasive plant removal and revegetation.

PDOT manages almost 900 acres of vegetation in unimproved roadsides and landscaped features. Within PDOT’s Maintenance Operations, the Street Cleaning Program manages vegetation within the right of way.

The Water Bureau has conducted an invasive plant inventory within the Bull Run watershed and on their in-town sites. Maintenance staff within this bureau also conduct invasive plant removal on the in-town sites. The Water Bureau has requested an invasive plant coordinator to assist with invasive plant management for the 4,750 acres of open space owned in the Bull Run watershed and on 425 acres adjacent to the Sandy River.

PDC owns or manages properties as part of their re-development programs. Most of their property is managed in accordance with City Code 29.20.010.

OMF provides internal services to support City bureaus. One of their responsibilities is to maintain a list of City owned properties, which is useful for vegetation management.

BOP has developed lists that define native, nuisance, and prohibited plants and they require avoidance and mitigation for activities that remove native plants in the Environmental Zones and Greenways. BOP also encourages removal of nuisance and prohibited plants in the Environmental and Greenway overlay zones. BDS implements policy developed by BOP.

Page 14 of 47 Chapter 3: Regional Invasive Species Control

3.1 Regional Efforts and City Coordination

The City participates in the Four County (Clackamas, Clark, Multnomah, and Washington) Cooperative Weed Management Association (CWMA). This is a collaborative weed management group that facilitates partnerships amongst public and private entities involved in invasive plant management. The CWMA five year management plan outlines the management principles, management levels, goals, objectives, and activities for this group. The CWMA exists to share information, inventory and assess weeds, conduct outreach to raise awareness, and sponsor effective and innovative weed control and restoration projects. City participation in this group has helped foster partnered weed control and outreach projects. Regular meetings help the group formulate consistent weed control priorities throughout the region.

3.2 Review of Invasive Plant Management Programs

In order to develop a three year work plan and ten year goals for invasive plant management in Portland, regional invasive plant management programs were evaluated. The City interviewed staff at local, state, and federal agencies and organizations2. Appendix D describes the programs evaluated as part of this research. Based upon a review of these programs, the following strategy components would improve invasive plant management at the City of Portland:

Noxious weed law. Both Oregon and Washington have state noxious weed laws that establish a ranked classification system to identify control priorities. However, Washington law is stricter than Oregon law because it stipulates that landowners are required to control for certain species on their property. If landowners do not implement controls within a specified timeline, then they must pay a public agency to implement invasive plant controls on their property. In most cases, Washington does not impose the fines; rather, they work cooperatively with property owners to control those species that have been determined to be the most invasive. A similar noxious weed law should be considered for the City of Portland to prevent future invasions and to control exotic invasions that are currently at low levels, but could worsen. Ideally, a statewide Oregon law that mirrors Washington law would provide the structure needed to effectively manage invasive species on private land. Recognizing that such a law may take time to implement, the City of Portland should investigate the feasibility of a local or regional (Multnomah County or Metro) regulation. The City of Chicago recently adopted an aquatic noxious weed law so the City of Portland would not be the first local jurisdiction

2 Local entities included Clean Water Services, City of Seattle, King County (Washington), Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation, North Portland Drainage Districts, Johnson Creek Watershed Council, Water and Environment Services, West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), East Multnomah SWCD, Port of Portland, and Metro. State entities included Oregon Department of State Lands, ODA, Oregon Parks and Recreation, and Washington State Department of Agriculture. Federal entities included Natural Resource Conservation Service, Pacific Power, and U.S. Forest Service.

Page 15 of 47 to adopt this type of regulation. In addition, Marion County has a local noxious weed law.

Property tax. Similar to the State of Washington, Oregon or the City of Portland should consider a property tax that funds invasive plant removal. The amount of funds that could be generated is further discussed in Chapter 6 of this report.

Invasive plant removal requirements. Similar to the regulations in Washington County, the City should consider requiring more extensive invasive plant removal and native plant re-vegetation as part of the permitting process for development and re- development projects. This is further described as an action in the three year work plan in Chapter 5.

Early Detection and Rapid Response program (EDRR). Similar to existing programs at the ODA, Clean Water Services (CWS), and Johnson Creek Watershed Council, the City should consider developing a program designed to treat small patches of highly invasive plants. This is the most cost effective way to control invasive plants. This type of program is further described in the three year work plan in Chapter 5.

3.3 Non-profit organizations

A variety of non-profit organizations within the City of Portland provide cost effective site restoration and invasive plant removal. These non-profits include SOLV, Friends of Trees, Three Rivers Land Conservancy (TRLC), Portland Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), ‘Friends of’ groups, watershed councils, and others. These groups include the community in problem solving relative to tough environmental issues. With relatively small investments, these groups can be effective at recruiting in-kind donations, obtaining grants, and volunteer contributions. For example, West Willamette Restoration Partnership (a collaborative restoration effort staffed by Three Rivers Land Conservancy) is restoring open space in western Portland at a rate of approximately $300 per acre.

Some of the existing BES partnerships with these groups are described in Appendix D of this report. Continuing our existing partnerships and seeking new ways to partner with these groups in the future provides a cost effective approach to implement site restoration. Additional partnership recommendations are outlined in Chapter 5 of this report.

Page 16 of 47 Chapter 4: Ten Year Goals

This chapter lists the ten year goals for the invasive plant strategy. These goals have been divided into program development, education/outreach/coordination, inventory/assessment, and control and restoration. The action plan developed to meet these goals is The ten year goals are summarized in four categories: further described in Chapter 5. The implementation of 1. Program development the ten year goals is limited by the costs and funding 2. Education/outreach/ sources described in Chapter 6 of this report. The coordination goal is to implement these actions by the end of the 3. Inventory/assessment calendar year in 2018. Table 2 summarizes the ten 4. Control and restoration year goals and three year work plan.

4.1 Program Development

x Implement code changes outlined below in the three year work plan x PP&R will develop Desired Future Conditions for all natural areas and hybrid parks x PP&R will develop habitat management plans for 15 natural areas and hybrid parks x Secure adequate funding for invasives program through ongoing budget sources. This includes the following: o Operations Maintenance horticulturist o Water Bureau invasive species coordinator o BDS enforcement staff with plant identification skills o BES staff for citywide invasive plant coordination, implementation of EDRR program, and implementation of adult outreach program o Funds to staff the PP&R Protect the Best program

4.2 Outreach, Education, and Coordination

x Develop a media strategy to create a critical mass of informed and motivated citizens x Reduce and/or prohibit sales of invasive species within Oregon by working with OAN and ODA x Coordinate with regional partners by participating in monthly CWMA meetings and quarterly OISC meetings x Implement an invasive species outreach and education program as outlined below in the three year work plan x Support local non-profit organizations in their efforts to involve 1,000 landowners in the backyard habitat certification program x Establish ten weed removal demonstration sites within the City of Portland

4.3 Inventory and Assessment

x Determine any additional inventory needs

Page 17 of 47 x Develop species specific management plans on an as needed basis x Prepare annual reports on the accomplishments and continuing efforts implemented by the Invasive Species Strategy x Evaluate the need for an Invasive Animal Strategy x Identify research needs for implementing control methods

4.4 Invasive Species Control

x No Class A species present within the City x Reduce the level of Class B species on public and privately owned land3 x Evaluate the cost, feasibility, and bureau responsibility of control/eradication of vertical coverage of ivy and clematis within City owned natural areas x Convert 1,947 acres from good to healthy condition; convert 1,871 acres from fair to good condition; convert 833 acres from poor to fair; convert 153 acres from severely degraded to stable. Improve habitat within 4,804 acres of PP&R land which is approximately 66% of open space parks. x Remove invasive species on 30 new acres per year as part of the Wildfire Risk Reduction program. Conduct ongoing maintenance on 500 acres per year. x Remove invasive species and revegetate 700 acres

3 Since there is not an existing up to date inventory of the coverage of most Class A and B species, measuring the success of this goal will be an estimate based upon the existing PP&R data and the mapping and control efforts implemented by the EDRR program.

Page 18 of 47 Chapter 5: Proposed Three Year Work Plan

This three year work plan was developed to create an effective management strategy for invasive plants within the City of Portland. This strategy report recommends that vegetation management remain the responsibility of each bureau that owns or manages that property or program, however, one City staff should be the invasive plant coordinator who assists each bureau in implementation of invasive plant management efforts. The invasive plant coordinator position will lead the City in implementation of this invasive plant strategy by implementing the following elements of the three year work plan which will lead to achievement of the ten year goals:

x Work with BOP and BDS to evaluate and implement policy and code changes to improve the detection, control, and eradication of invasive plants on public and private property. x Develop and implement additional outreach and education programs targeted at adults. x Coordinate invasive plant control efforts with City bureaus, the public, regional agencies, and non-profit groups. x Assist PP&R with updating and development of habitat management plans and desired future conditions; possibly by hiring a BES intern or Portland State University student to work with PP&R on plan development. x Assist each Bureau with identification of invasive plant control priorities. x Develop and implement an EDRR Program to control small populations of invasive plants before they become large infestations. x Evaluate the feasibility of hiring additional AmeriCorps staff to conduct invasive plant removal within City parks and road right of way; this team will also conduct adult outreach/education. x Assist the City with securing funding sources for implementation of invasive plant control efforts.

The following sections and Table 2 further describe the elements of the three year work plan described above and the ten year goals outlined in Chapter 4.

5.1 Policy and Programs

5.1.1 Policy

Appendix D describes the goals, policies, and objectives that relate to invasive plant management in the City Comprehensive Plan. Invasive species management is a process that implements many of the stated policies and objectives; however, invasive plant management is not specifically referenced in the plan. The comprehensive plan is currently being revised through the Portland Plan work program. The policies and objectives for environmental goals should incorporate invasive plant management by highlighting the role of invasive species in habitat quality and the relationship to fish and wildlife habitat conservation and enhancement. The Portland Plan should include

Page 19 of 47 priority actions, as well as address the effects of invasive species on biodiversity, tree canopy, soil stability (erosion), wildfire risk, and economics.

Appendix D describes how the invasive plant strategy is consistent with the Portland Watershed Management Plan (PWMP) and the Urban Forestry Action Plan; however, any future updates to these plans should incorporate the invasive plant management goals and priorities established in this strategy report.

5.1.2 Programs to Enhance Public Land Management

Appendix D describes the current City codes that relate to invasive plant management. This report describes potential changes in City policy that would improve invasive plant control efforts within the City. These recommendations were based upon conversations with the BOP, BDS, PP&R, and BES staff as well as a review of other invasive plant management programs, such as CWS and the State of Washington (see Chapter 3). This section describes a proposed change in the Greenway code and development of a citywide Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan. Both of these actions would facilitate invasive plant control projects on public land.

PP&R and the BES Revegetation Team implement invasive plant control on public lands. They follow the practices outlined in the PP&R IPM Plan and they utilize a variety of control methods to eradicate invasive plants. However, in order to apply herbicide on publicly owned land with a Greenway zoning overlay, they must submit an application to BDS for a Land Use review in order to obtain a Greenway permit unless the application is part of an ongoing maintenance program. Once the permit application is prepared, then the permitting process takes about three months, and the permit application fee costs approximately $1,600. Therefore, invasive plant management efforts could be improved by adding an exemption in the Greenway code that allow for herbicide application (if it is applied consistent with the PP&R IPM Plan) by City staff (or contractors) within the Greenway. The current process adds significant project costs and delays in effective vegetation management and it can greatly hinder important invasive species response actions.

PP&R has an IPM program with a 4(d) rule exemption from NOAA Fisheries; however, the City should also consider the development of a citywide IPM plan in which we seek a citywide 4(d) rule exemption with NOAA Fisheries. This is further described below under the methods chapter. This would provide citywide coverage for vegetation management under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Currently, each bureau has been seeking this ESA coverage separately on a project by project basis and this adds significant costs and project delays.

To reduce the number of new introductions and to reduce the spread of invasive species, the City should evaluate the existing specifications and standards for cleaning City and contractor equipment. As part of this strategy, existing specifications and standards will be evaluated to determine if changes could improve existing practices.

Page 20 of 47 5.1.3 Programs for Public and Private Lands

The following five programmatic changes are suggested for public and private lands:

1) Update City native, nuisance, prohibited plant lists. In order to manage invasive plants, they must be defined. The list in Appendix A suggests a tiered system to define invasive plants according to their existing distribution and level of invasion potential. These ranks could be added to the City nuisance and prohibited plant lists through the appropriate list update processes. At that time the City could also consider adding any species, such as Indigo bush (Amorpha fruticosa) and spurge laurel (Daphne laureola), which are not currently on the nuisance list.

2) Promote consistency among City recommended plant lists. The City should not condone the use of invasive plants on public or private property. However, there are several lists that the City provides to landowners who are selecting species for street trees, erosion control, and stormwater facilities. The street tree list maintained by City Urban Forestry contains Norway maple (Acer planatoides) which is also on the nuisance plant list. All plant lists within the City should be evaluated for consistency to ensure that we are not recommending invasive plants.

3) Noxious weed control law for private land. As described in Chapter 3, both Oregon and Washington have noxious weed laws. However, Washington’s law is stricter because it stipulates that landowners are required to control for certain species on their property. In most cases, Washington does not impose the fines; rather, they work cooperatively with property owners to control those species that have been determined to be the most invasive. A similar noxious weed law should be considered for the City of Portland. Rather than aiming to control well established invasive species which could be cost prohibitive, this proposed law would aim to prevent the establishment of species like false brome or hogweed which are currently limited in their distribution, but have the potential to have large scale habitat and/or human health impacts if they spread. Species that might be considered for noxious weed regulations in Portland are the CWMA Class A species.

Some of these plants are ornamental plants that are used in landscaping situations. Therefore, the noxious weed regulations could be developed so that some species are only regulated when they are present in designated lands zoned as parks, Environmental Zones, or Greenways. This list would have to go through a formal legislative review process as a revision to the City’s nuisance and prohibited plant lists. This land use process would include a public comment period and the list and noxious weed rules would likely be revised to address public comments prior to adoption.

4) Requiring invasive plant removal through development and redevelopment. The City of Portland should evaluate the potential ecological benefits, feasibility, and

Page 21 of 47 costs for the City, other agencies, and landowners if code changes required invasive species removal in conjunction with development. The City should review relevant code titles and evaluate options to enhance removal of invasives as part of the development process. The City should also consider revised mitigation ratios that require additional invasive plant removal and native plant revegetation for applicants that propose impacts to the Environmental and Greenway zones.

Requiring invasive plant removal as part of land use and permit processes might sound extreme; however, it is already implemented in Washington County. CWS requires landowners seeking development permits to remove invasive plants within the first 50’ of all stream and wetland buffers. This requirement exists even if the landowner is avoiding impacts to these areas. CWS also requires larger mitigation replacement ratios when applicants propose impacts to stream and wetland buffers. CWS authority for these regulations lies within their NPDES permit and their requirement to protect water quality.

5) Outdoor Maintenance Requirements Title 29. BES is often required to mow their property to be in compliance with outdoor maintenance requirements in Title 29.20.010. Title 29.20.010 requires grass and weeds to be maintained to a height of less than ten inches. Thickets must be cut so as to not conceal hazards. This regulation should be further evaluated to determine if the City could use this section of code (or a modified version) to enforce invasive plant control on private lands located immediately adjacent to City lands.

5.1.4 Enforcement

When the City requires landscaping as a result of mitigation requirements from the Greenway and Environmental zone code compliance, these mitigation plantings are inspected by BDS staff. Any additional policy changes that increase regulations for invasive plant removal or native plant revegetation should account for additional BDS staff to enforce these regulations. These enforcement staff should have a background in plant identification.

5.2 Outreach and Education

As described in Appendix D, BES and PP&R have existing programs that provide education, outreach, and volunteer opportunities related to invasive plants. BES provides an excellent education curriculum for K-12 students. However, other than volunteer work parties, the City lacks invasive plant outreach efforts aimed at adults. There are other regional agencies and non-profit organizations in Portland that do target this audience. Therefore, this section identifies additional outreach and educational efforts that the City could implement as well as opportunities to facilitate partnerships with other agencies and non-profit entities. Some of these programs have been tested or started while this strategy report was being developed. This adult outreach program could be developed and supervised by BES and/or PP&R staff, staffed by a mixed

Page 22 of 47 placement AmeriCorps team (see description in Chapter 5.6.3), and/or implemented through partnerships with other agencies and non-profit organizations.

5.2.1 Develop Media Strategy

An on-going media strategy should be developed to create a critical mass of informed and motivated citizens. Media messaging should present the problems with invasive plants, but it should primarily focus on solutions and providing technical assistance. Many citizens believe that invasive plant control is impossible; therefore, this outreach should highlight successful invasive plant removal projects. As part of this media strategy, the City should explore the findings of a recent Master’s study at Oregon State University (Kubeck 2008), and incorporate recommendations from those findings into the outreach program.

5.2.2 Technical Assistance to Landowners

Within the City of Portland, most of the technical assistance provided to landowners is provided by the East and West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs). These agencies meet with landowners to educate them about the watershed impacts of invasive plants, identification, and eradication techniques. This type of outreach program could reach more landowners if it was similarly implemented by the City. The outreach might consist of educational materials, one on one site visits, or quarterly workshops. The City could develop this outreach effort in conjunction with the SWCD’s so that cooperation would prevent each agency from providing overlapping services. This type of outreach is also achieved through the Backyard Habitat Certification Program.

The National Wildlife Federation has a national property certification program; however, Portland area non-profit organizations have recently started a local Backyard Habitat Certification Program. TRLC works with property owners to remove invasive plants and revegetate their land with native species. The City currently funds a portion of this program as a pilot project of the West Willamette Restoration Partnership, but should also consider working with TRLC to expand this program beyond its current capacity. Currently, the Backyard Habitat Program is offered to landowners within the TRLC defined West Willamette Restoration Corridor. Expanding this to other neighborhoods would increase the amount of invasive species removal conducted on private land.

Property owners participate in the Backyard Habitat Program at a variety of levels. They can get silver, gold, or platinum certification depending upon how many invasive species have been removed from their property and whether or not they re-plant with natives. The partnership provides the landowner with educational materials, technical assistance, support for partnered weed removal efforts, and a certification sign.

Last summer, the City attended a TRLC workshop that focused on how the backyard habitat program could be expanded. The suggestions from this workshop could be incorporated into an expanded program. Suggestions included providing program participation incentives, ensuring that there is ongoing program monitoring to maintain

Page 23 of 47 program authenticity, and evaluating gaps and overlaps with the National Wildlife Federation certification program. Possible incentives were suggested including providing free (donated) garden tools and/or possibly a tax break incentive for participants (see more information about potential tax breaks in Chapter 6). TRLC is currently teaming with the Portland Audubon Society and agency partners to expand the backyard habitat program throughout the City.

Currently, the BES Revegetation Team approaches some landowners adjacent to natural areas to develop cooperative working agreements for invasive plant removal and native plant revegetation. An education and outreach program could be developed that is targeted at landowners adjacent to natural areas. This program might develop outreach materials and/or contact these landowners and provide trainings on the watershed impacts of invasive plants, identification, and eradication techniques. These trainings could be offered to individuals on a site by site basis and/or they could be annual trainings scheduled quarterly.

The City also needs to have specific outreach programs aimed at gardeners. Over the past year, the City teamed with TNC, Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), Oregon Association of Nurseries (OAN), and Oregon State University (OSU) Extension to develop an outreach publication for gardeners. With funding from several partners, 70,000 copies of GardenSmart Oregon: A guide to non-invasive plants were published in May 2008. This publication is available at retail nurseries, including large vendors such as the four Portland metropolitan area Walmart stores. Working with retailers in this partnered outreach effort will encourage them to remove invasive plant stock and increase the sale of native plants and non-invasive alternatives. Increased public education about the problems with invasive plants will also reduce the demand for invasive plants.

This GardenSmart publication is part of a larger public outreach and education campaign started by the Statesman Journal, Oregon Invasive Species Council, SOLV, and OPB. In September 2007, the Statesman Journal started running a monthly series about invasive plants. They also created a web site with information about invasive plants (http://www.invasivespeciesoforegon.com). Oregon Field Guide, an OPB series, developed programs about invasive plants and the final culmination of these pieces will be aired on April 22, 2008 as The Silent Invasion. More information about this program can be found online at http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/invasives. The City also partnered with Oregon Zoo and other campaign partners to host a pre-screening of the Silent Invasion on April 14, 2008. This event had informational tables in the reception area to inform attendees about ways to get involved with local invasive plant removal efforts.

The City of Portland and members from the Four County CWMA staffed a booth about invasive plants at the Portland Home and Garden Show in February 2008 (Photo 24). Over 300 gardeners stopped by the table to ask questions about invasive plant identification, control, and the impacts of invasive plants. Future outreach to gardeners might include giving presentations to the Garden Clubs, the Hardy Plant Society, local

Page 24 of 47 nurseries, and staffing booths at future garden events. This is a very important audience who could spread the message about native and invasive plants. For example, last year the theme of the Oregon Garden Clubs was landscaping with native plants.

The Portland Area Pollution Prevention Outreach Team sponsors an ecological business certification program for landscaping professionals (EcoBiz). The team includes eight local jurisdictions (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Washington County, Clackamas County, Portland, Troutdale, Gresham, Metro, and CWS). Currently, there are only six landscape firms certified under this program in the City of Portland. However, there are opportunities to promote the sustainable certification program both to landscape firms and the public. This will provide the public with technical assistance in vegetation management including invasive plant removal methods and revegetation with native species.

The invasive species coordinator could also provide presentations and/or technical support to watershed councils, neighborhood groups, and Friends groups. These would be scheduled upon request and the content would vary depending upon the group interest. For example, in December 2007, the invasive species coordinator met with Friends of Smith and Bybee Lake to provide guidance for their development of an invasive plant management plan.

Presentations to neighborhood groups would help provide information to all neighborhoods in the City despite how much greenspace might be present within that neighborhood. Neighborhood associations could be contacted by working with the Office of Neighborhood Involvement and presentations could be scheduled for one neighborhood group a month in March through November. Presentations and/or field trips would focus on the watershed impacts of invasive plants, identification, and eradication techniques. These presentations would also offer ways for this group to get involved in projects in their neighborhood.

5.2.3 Publication and Outreach Materials

BES recently developed a web site specific to invasive plant management efforts at the City: http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=45696.

The web site describes the impacts of invasive species and provides links to information about native plants such as the City plant lists (nuisance, prohibited, and native), native and invasive plant posters, and weed profiles. The web site also includes links to regional information about how to control invasive plants, where to find technical assistance, and how to volunteer at work parties. The web site is interactive in that visitors can email the City invasive plant coordinator with questions. This web site will be updated with ongoing activities and with this report. In the future, features such as invasive plant inventories or a way to report invasive plant sightings, might be added to make this site more interactive. It was a conscious effort that this web site should not duplicate existing information about invasive species that is already present on other

Page 25 of 47 web sites. Therefore, the content was kept specific to City programs and providing links to additional web sites for further information.

A blog could be added for those interested in invasive plant species. This blog would provide a forum for landowners who want to certify their backyard as “invasive free.”

The City has developed a native plant poster, an invasive plant poster, 11 weed profiles, and the GardenSmart publication. Additional outreach materials could be developed to further the education and outreach component of the invasive plant strategy. Examples might include flyers, information about integrated pest management, a pamphlet on how to dispose of weeds, technical assistance about invasive plant removal techniques, additional weed profiles, and/or other materials based upon the need determined by additional outreach efforts. Any additional outreach material development would be coordinated within the City bureaus and regionally to avoid re-creating existing publications.

5.2.4 Lead by Example

Implementation of successful invasive plant removal projects on City owned property sets an example of good land stewardship practices. Maintaining the existing invasive plant removal programs outlined in Chapter 2 of this report and implementing the control programs outlined in Section 5.1 of this report would demonstrate City leadership in invasive plant control.

The City should also make an effort to publicize our successful invasive plant removal projects. For example, the CWMA has a weed removal demonstration project which highlights successful invasive plant removal projects. The City has proposed Maricara Park as a candidate for this demonstration project; however, we should also include additional sites in the future. We might also consider funding invasive plant removal at some highly visible sites and use those to demonstrate successful invasive plant removal projects. For example, we could conduct invasive plant removal adjacent to trails or partner with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on some highly visible removal projects, such as the Hwy 26 tunnel.

The invasive plant coordinator could also offer workshops about invasive plant identification and control methods to City staff. Since April 2007, three invasive plant identification workshops were implemented as a pilot project for an adult outreach program. The audiences for the 2007 presentations included Columbia Slough Watershed Council volunteers, and City of Portland, City of Gresham, and Multnomah County maintenance staff. The City could offer these annual spring-summer trainings to City Water Bureau, PP&R staff, and other departments. Providing these trainings to entities beyond City employees would depend upon staffing levels and work loads. The species list for the training event would vary slightly and be tailored to the specific group.

Page 26 of 47 5.3 Coordination

Part of the invasive plant strategy is inter-bureau and regional interagency coordination. The invasive species coordinator has been working with the following groups to facilitate invasive plant control efforts: PDC, PP&R, BES, BOP, Water Bureau, BDS, City Operations Maintenance, OAN, ODA, ODOT, Oregon Invasive Species Council (OISC), the Northwest Weed Management Partnership, Metro, and the 4 County CWMA. These coordination efforts are further described below.

The content of this report was developed in coordination with PDC, PP&R, BES, BOP, Water Bureau, BDS, and City Operations Maintenance. Ongoing future collaboration should focus on technical assistance and coordination of City-wide invasive plant control efforts.

OAN has a quarterly natural resource committee meeting that the invasive species coordinator has been attending and should continue to attend. This non-profit trade association plays a lead role in shaping legislation related to the nursery industry. For example, OAN comments on legislation such as ODA noxious weed rules. Working with OAN will facilitate communication and lead to partnership opportunities, such as the GardenSmart publication. Participation in these quarterly committee meetings will help the City understand nursery industry issues and come to common ground for furthering invasive plant control efforts in Oregon. The type of progress that these partnerships afford is demonstrated by the working relationship with TNC staff and OAN members over the last few years. The OAN has endorsed the St. Louis Declaration on Invasive Species and they published a four page article on invasive species in the front of the 2008 Nursery Directory and Buyers Guide.

The invasive species coordinator should attend the quarterly OISC meetings. The mission of the OISC is to conduct a coordinated and comprehensive effort to keep invasive species out of Oregon and to eliminate, reduce, or mitigate the impacts of invasive species already established in Oregon. Meeting attendance provides an opportunity to stay up to date on statewide invasive species issues such as the Top 100 Invasive List, ODA rule changes, and statewide management priorities. It also provides the opportunity to interact with agency staff from the ODA, ODOT, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon State Marine Board, and Oregon Department of Forestry. Other members include Portland State University, Bureau of Indian Affairs, TNC, OSU Extension, and OAN. Participation with council activities also creates opportunities to contribute to larger statewide efforts, such as the Oregon Invasive Species Summit that was held in July of 2008.

Attendance at the monthly Four County CWMA meetings is important because it facilitates partnerships on control efforts, helps to identify regional control priorities, and allows regional experts to share technical information about the most effective treatment methods. The mission statement and goals of the CWMA are described in Chapter 3. Groups with regular attendance at these meetings over the past year include Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation, BES and PP&R, West and East Multnomah and Clackamas SWCDs, TNC, The Portland Audubon Society, TRLC, CWS Multnomah County Roads

Page 27 of 47 Department, City of Lake Oswego, and the Northwest Weed Management Partnership. The CWMA group is currently working with Metro Connecting Green to ensure efforts do not overlap and to determine the most effective way for these two groups to coordinate regional restoration projects. Coordination with the CWMA also allows the City to coordinate with other regional parks providers such as Metro, Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District, and the City of Gresham.

Coordination with ODOT is also important because they maintain right of way vegetation within the City. The City invasive plant coordinator has been working with the ODOT invasive species coordinator to exchange information about invasive species management within the right of way. ODOT is conducting research on right of way vegetation management strategies using native plants. The results of these studies will be useful to add to the City’s experience using native seed mixes in the right of way.

As part of the Silent Invasion campaign (See Section 5.2.4), BES teamed with OPB and SOLV to post City volunteer work parties on their web sites. The City should continue to partner with SOLV and other non-profit groups on invasive plant removal and native revegetation volunteer work parties.

5.4 Assessment (Inventory and Control Priorities)

Most invasive plant management plans start with an inventory to assess the problem, determine management priorities, and estimate the cost of control. The City has inventoried approximately 75% of the publicly owned open space. Current programs implement invasive plant management throughout these areas. This section describes the inventory results, and outlines invasive plant control priorities.

5.4.1 Inventory

The City owns approximately 10,400 acres of land within the City limits plus 4,750 acres within Mt. Hood National Forest. Most of this area has been inventoried for invasive plants. PP&R has completed vegetation surveys on approximately 7,800 acres and the Water Bureau has inventoried most of their in-town sites and the roadsides within the Bull Run. See Appendix D and Table 3 for the results of these inventories.

In addition to the assessments conducted for publicly owned land within the City, BOP completed a Natural Resource Inventory Vegetation Mapping Project (2005) that documents over 32,162 acres of herbaceous, shrub, and forested vegetated acres within the 92,000 acre City limits (inventory included vegetated areas >0.5 acre). This inventory does not assess habitat quality nor does it estimate presence, absence, or coverage of invasive species. In addition, there is over 21,000 acres of uninventoried privately owned vegetated land within the City. It may be inefficient to inventory invasive plants on 21,000+ acres. This would require extensive staff time to obtain access to private property, conduct the field work, enter the data, and analyze the results. In comparison, it took two PP&R staff four years to complete the 7,800 acre inventory data set.

Page 28 of 47 Rather than inventory all of the open space within the City, the PP&R data can be used to estimate the invasive species coverage likely to be present on the vegetated areas within the City. PP&R survey data indicates that invasive plants cover approximately 13-40% of the acreage surveyed. This can be interpreted that invasive plants likely constitute an average of one-third of the plant cover; some areas are more heavily infested while others remain fairly pristine. If those percentages are extrapolated to all vegetated areas in the City, then 4,181 - 12,864 acres of invasive plants are present within City limits (32,162 acres of vegetated land times 13% - 40%). The actual acreage is even higher because the Natural Area Inventory Vegetation Mapping Project did not include vegetated areas less than 0.5 acre. The results of the PP&R inventory are also described in Appendix D and the data summary is provided in Table 4.

When the PP&R inventory was started, the intent was to repeat this survey every ten years. Updated inventory data would document the success of invasive plant removal efforts, whether areas are becoming more infested with invasive plants, as well as trends in vegetation coverage changes resulting from management efforts and/or spreading invasives. Currently, PP&R staff are conducting inventory on additional open space lands as staff time is available, and they plan to conduct updated inventories on a subset of parks each year. Plant inventory data is also collected during treatments and follow up monitoring. Through an EDRR Program, the City will also conduct inventories for potential new infestations and investigate reports of new infestations from the public, ODA hotline, and the Oregon Invasive Species hotline.

5.4.2 Control Priorities

This section outlines five control priorities for invasive plant control: Habitat quality Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) Landowner participation and available funds Risk to adjacent lands, and Protecting existing infrastructure.

The City currently uses some of these ways to set control priorities whereas some of these approaches constitute new program directions. These five different control priorities are further described below.

5.4.2.1 Habitat Quality

The PP&R ‘Protect the Best’ program (see Appendix D) is an example of setting control priorities to maintain the highest quality habitat. This is a very effective and resource efficient way to prioritize invasive species control efforts because invasive plants are removed when they still represent a minor percent coverage within the community. Removing small patches of invasives is typically more successful than trying to eradicate large infestations. In addition, when the invasive plant coverage is limited and the native vegetation is relatively intact, then the native plant community does not need to be restored following invasive plant removal. This approach focuses on high quality

Page 29 of 47 habitat preservation and enhancement rather than trying to re-create high quality habitats from highly disturbed areas.

5.4.2.2 Early Detection and Rapid Response

The EDRR approach is another way to set control priorities. As described in the Introduction, this approach is being adopted throughout the country. This method sets a high priority for controlling invasions when the infestation is very small because then the species is more likely to be eradicated and the cost of control efforts are minimized. This approach is similar to protecting the best habitat; however, rather than prioritizing by high quality habitat areas, EDRR control efforts are prioritized by species. Those species that are most likely to invade new areas and currently have relatively low cover are the highest control priority.

The first step in setting EDRR control priorities is to develop a ranked species list that identifies which species are the most important for control. The species list in Appendix A presents a ranking system that might be used to establish control priorities for an EDRR program within in the City of Portland. This list applies the CWMA rankings to the City nuisance and prohibited plant lists. Once these rankings are established through an update to the Portland Plant list, then this list could be used to inform and help implement an EDRR prioritized control program within the City. These rankings also include some regulatory implications discussed previously in this chapter.

The second step in the implementation of an EDRR program is to map and treat known locations of high priority plants for control. These populations will be monitored to ensure complete eradication. An EDRR program also has an outreach component to teach people to identify and report sightings of highly invasive plants.

The City does not currently have an EDRR program and this would be a very effective addition to our current invasive plant control efforts. The EDRR program would be developed consistent with the TNC and other statewide efforts to develop these types of programs. Funding this type of a program is described in Chapter 6.

5.4.2.3 Invasive Plant Removal on Heavily Infested Sites

Invasive plant control and revegetation is often a component of capital improvement and watershed enhancement projects. The BES Revegetation Group teams with the BES Watershed Group, PP&R, and private landowners to remove invasive plants and revegetate properties as funds and opportunities arise. The BES Revegetation Team typically tackles very heavily invaded sites in order to remove the invasive plants to such a level that a native shrub and forest canopy can become established at this site. Having a program that aims at restoring very degraded sites is an important component of an overall invasive plant management plan.

5.4.2.4 Reduce Wildfire Risk

Page 30 of 47 The PP&R and BES wildfire risk reduction program targets invasive species removal in areas where the risk of fire spreading to adjacent homes is reduced if clematis, ivy, and blackberry are removed from the forest understory and canopy. This program began in 2006, and by 2009 it is projected to have removed invasive species from 500 acres of the east slope of Oaks Bottom, the north escarpment (near University of Portland), and Forest Park. Thus, level of infestation and number of nearby homes are used to prioritize invasive species control efforts.

5.4.2.5 Protecting Existing Green Infrastructure

Chapter 1 describes the importance of invasive plant removal as maintenance for our existing green infrastructure. Large forested tracks cover significant lands in each watershed and cross ownership boundaries. Canopy protection should be given a high priority for the many watershed benefits provided by existing forests and the low- cost/high-value nature of this program element. Additionally, many groundcover and shrub layers in forested areas (particularly those never tilled or graded) regenerate naturally with minimal seeding and planting following invasive plant control. Three invasive plant species—English ivy, western clematis, and Himalayan blackberry—are well-established and they will need to be removed in order to protect existing green infrastructure and provide forest regeneration for decades to come. PP&R survey data indicates that 63% of the open space areas surveyed are in fair to severely degraded condition. Much of that invasive cover is comprised of English ivy and clematis that climbs into the canopy and threatens tree survival. Therefore, protection of our forest canopy should be a control priority. This strategy proposes an AmeriCorps member team that could focus on removal of invasive species in the canopy of existing forested parks and land adjacent to public right of way. Additional information about the AmeriCorps team is provided in Section 4.6.3.

5.4.3 Annual Reporting

Once the strategy is implemented, it will be important to determine how invasive species management has been incorporated into City programs and if invasive plant cover is decreasing throughout the City. The invasive plant coordinator will prepare monthly and annual reports to document ongoing efforts and accomplishments. The monthly reports will consist of a one page list of items completed by the invasive plant coordinator that month and upcoming tasks for the next month. The format and content of the annual reports would be similar to the annual reports prepared for the Urban Forest Action Plan. These annual reports would describe the policy, program, outreach, coordination, assessment, and control actions accomplished by the City each year. The acreage of invasive plant removal and revegetation will be tracked and reported by the BES Watershed Groups, BES Revegetation Team, PP&R Protect the Best program, and the Water Bureau, and compiled and reported in the annual reports.

The three year work plan was developed during FY 07-08 and will commence in the fall of 2008. Therefore, by the end of the calendar year in 2011, we will need to evaluate the success of the three year work plan to document that the elements outlined this chapter have been implemented.

Page 31 of 47 5.4.4 Invasive Animal Strategy

During the development of the invasive plant strategy, questions have been raised about the impacts of invasive terrestrial and aquatic animal species and about the potential for the City to develop an invasive strategy that addresses species other than plants. There are invasive animal species that are already well-established throughout the City and these species have impacts to infrastructure and habitat. For example, nutria (Myocaster coypus) alter stream bank and pipe bedding stability and bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) alter native species composition. There are also invasive aquatic nuisance species that have not yet invaded the City, such as zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and quagga mussels (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis), that would have huge economic impacts once established. Some of these issues are being identified by the Terrestrial Ecology Enhancement Strategy Advisory Group, and the results will be incorporated into the PWMP. As part of the three year work plan, this invasive plant strategy recommends that the City evaluate the feasibility and/or need for a citywide invasive animal species strategy. This strategy could be a document similar to this one including a problem statement, a description of existing programs, a proposed work plan, and an estimation of program implementation costs and funding sources. Invasive animals will be further discussed at the November 2008 invasive plant summit to obtain stakeholder feedback on local management actions.

5.4.5 Research

As part of the three year work plan, the City should identify research needs for improving invasive plant control methods. Potential research topics will be discussed at the fall 2008 invasive plant summit. Ongoing invasive plant control efforts at the City could be designed to collect data on the most effective methods and/or the City could work with graduate students to conduct these studies as part of their graduate research.

5.5 Control and Restoration

5.5.1 Methods

PP&R has an IPM Plan that provides oversight and direction for pest management activities on all park lands. PP&R has also developed specific Weed Management Guidelines for several invasive weed species. The BES Revegetation Team has a Vegetation Management Guidance document and Operating Procedures (Appendix D). These documents provide guidance on how to select the appropriate invasive plant control methods. There is also more species-specific information about invasive plant control methods available on the web. For example, TNC’s web site (http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs.html) provides information about plant life history and the most appropriate control methods for most invasive plants. The invasive plant coordinator also prepared a memorandum about site considerations for using goats as a control method (Appendix H).

There is adequate information available about how to select the most appropriate methods for invasive plant control. However, the City should consider adopting

Page 32 of 47 consistent control methods across the bureaus to help provide regulatory compliance under ESA. Currently, most Portland land management bureaus use the PP&R IPM Plan as guidance for their program. PP&R has a 4(d) rule exemption4 to manage invasive plants on PP&R property using various control methods outlined in their IPM Plan. Approved methods include specified use of herbicides. Herbicide use by other bureaus, such as the BES Revegetation Team, is also covered when they are applying herbicides on PP&R property under an interbureau agreement with PP&R (as long as they are also following the PP&R IPM Plan). However, other bureaus are not covered when they are applying herbicides on their own bureau property, even if they are following the methods outlined in the PP&R IPM Plan. Only PP&R is legally protected under the 4 (d) rule exemption. Therefore, the City could be liable to a third party lawsuit if someone filed a claim that an herbicide application resulted in harm to a listed fish species. Thus, developing a citywide IPM Plan and seeking a 4(d) rule exemption should be evaluated as part of the three year work plan.

It should be clarified that herbicide application is not the only method that the City uses for invasive plant control. The City implements several methods for invasive species control. The most appropriate method is usually site specific and depends on the invasive species present, the surrounding vegetation, the amount of invasive species coverage, and proximity to water. The City uses preventative approaches, such as monitoring for the presence of small infestations, and managing areas so that they are not conducive to weed establishment. The City also uses physical, cultural, and biological control methods. Physical control methods include manual and mechanical removal methods; hand removal through pulling and using equipment such as mowers or chainsaws to cut vegetation. Biological control methods include: releasing biological agents that target a specific plant growth stage; mulching sites to prevent weed establishment; using fire to remove invasive plants; and changing the hydrologic regime to desiccate or flood plant roots. Cultural control methods include selecting native plant species that grow quickly to establish dense cover and reduce the available resources for invasive plant establishment, growth, and proliferation. All of these practices are further described in the PP&R IPM Plan, BES Revegetation Program Operating Procedures, and the BES Vegetation Management Guidance document.

5.5.2 Development of Species-specific Management Plans

Part of the EDRR program may include development of species-specific management plans that also address introduction pathways. If one of the species being controlled through the EDRR program becomes pervasive, then it might be helpful to develop a management plan specific to that species. This management plan would include an inventory of plant location, a description of the most effective control methods and timing for different applications, and defined roles for each bureau responsible for

4 Chapter 4(d) of the ESA requires a federal agency to develop protective measures to prevent additional impacts to a threatened or endangered species. In Oregon, the 4(d) rule for listed fish species indicates that pesticide use is one of eight activities that are likely to harm or kill fish. Pesticide application programs that have developed management plans that follow the 4(d) rule, such as PP&R’s IPM Plan, are considered compliant with the ESA. As a result of several court cases and additional research, pesticide use near streams is receiving more scrutiny today than when many of these management plans were developed.

Page 33 of 47 treating each area. These species-specific management plans would be developed as needed; however, they should start with B-ranked species such as garlic mustard, knotweeds, and purple loosestrife because these species are beginning to expand their range and may require an interbureau approach for best management practices.

5.5.3 Control Efforts

This section lists the recommended invasive plant control actions for the next three years – through 2011. These actions have been divided by bureau and they have been divided into actions that should occur on public and private land. These control actions need to occur in concert with the above described policy, outreach, coordination, and assessment efforts; however, the implementation is also limited by the costs and funding sources described in Chapter 6 of this report.

Public and Private Land

Early Detection Rapid Response Program Develop a prioritized list of the most invasive plants and implement controls on public and private land for Class A and B designated species (see Appendix A for species rankings). The invasive species coordinator would work with an additional staff member on the BES Revegetation Team to select and prioritize sites for control. The BES Re- vegetation Team could implement control efforts by hiring sub-contractors or by hiring one staff to implement control efforts. Control efforts would be tracked similar to their existing program protocols. The City will need to develop private property permission access forms to implement this program. The goal of this program is to encourage the public to report sitings, prioritize control efforts, implement controls, conduct ongoing monitoring, and prepare annual reports on the control efforts implemented and overall program effectiveness.

Wildfire Risk Reduction Program Remove invasive species from 30 acres per year as part of the Wildfire Risk Reduction program.

In addition to the program actions listed above, the following actions apply to the specified bureaus:

Water Bureau x Work towards eliminating Class C species from City owned acres within the Bull Run Watershed x Implement riparian enhancement along the Sandy River x Hire an invasive species coordinator x Work towards eliminating Class C species from Water Bureau sites in town x Inventory larger Water Bureau owned sites in town that have not yet been surveyed for invasives

PP&R

Page 34 of 47 x Implement the annual controls as outlined in ten year increments for the “Protect the Best” plan x Control Class C species and re-vegetate publicly owned land as funding is available (see Appendix A for species rankings) x Develop Desired Future Conditions and habitat management plans for natural areas and hybrid parks to help prioritize invasive plant management and removal efforts (Appendix A)

PDC x Conduct an inventory to assess problem invasive areas x Consider transfer of ownership/management of some parcels x Sub-contract invasive plant control efforts

BES x Control Class C species and re-vegetate publicly owned land as funding is available x Develop a protocol for implementing EDRR program on private lands x Work with the OAN to reduce and/or prohibit sales of invasive species within Oregon

Operations Maintenance x Hire a horticulturist to develop protocols for integrating invasive plant management into current roadside maintenance and street area landscape management programs

OMF x Work with Corporate GIS to develop a public ownership layer that documents bureau land ownership for coordinating invasive management (inventory and control) efforts

PP&R and BES x Evaluate the feasibility of hiring a five member mixed placement AmeriCorps team to conduct invasive species control and adult education and outreach programs. This staff could be supervised by BES or PP&R staff, but they would work on PP&R land and in road right of way to remove invasive species. Invasive species removal by hand within the right of way is a gap in the City’s current management program. The AmeriCorps team would work together removing invasive species and conducting revegetation two to three days per week. Sites would be selected by working with BES Revegetation Team and PP&R staff to prioritize control areas. For example, one priority might be to remove ivy from the tree canopy throughout the City. This team would spend the remaining two to three days per week implementing the adult outreach and education program outlined above. The AmeriCorps team could also help organize additional community supported invasive species removal work parties. One way to build local support would be to have each

Page 35 of 47 member stationed in one region of Portland to target adult outreach efforts within that community.

BOP and BDS x Control of invasive plants through development and redevelopment on public and private land would be achieved through the policy and code updates, enforcement, and education/outreach outlined previously in this chapter.

Community-led Efforts on Private Land

Additional invasive plant removal would also occur through voluntary efforts implemented by citizens who would be more informed about invasive plants as a result of the programs described above. Invasive plant removal efforts on private land will also be increased due to outreach and technical assistance provided by the City of Portland, East and West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation Districts, SOLV, the Backyard Habitat Program (TRLC and Audubon), “Friends of” groups, watershed councils, and others.

5.5.4 Site Restoration Following Control Efforts

Revegetation plans should be implemented where necessary following invasive plant removal. Revegetation plans will be site specific, but they should consider the following guidance:

x How many years of follow up treatment will be needed to remove the invasive vegetation? If invasive plant removal will require multiple treatments, then delay site revegetation until those treatments are complete or install plants in a way that follow up treatments can still be implemented. For example, plants can be installed in clumps, rows, or in cages so that invasive plant removal can still be implemented in a cost efficient manner without disturbing recently installed vegetation. If revegetation is delayed, then consider interim practices to reduce the establishment of new invasive plants. For example, installation of cover crops, fabric, or placing mulch on site temporarily reduces available resources if invasive plant removal treatments need to extend through multiple growing seasons. If installing a temporary cover crop or mulch, be sure that it doesn’t contain unwanted seeds.

x What resources (light, nutrients, water, space) will be released by removing these invasives? If invasive plant removal releases large quantities of light, nutrients, water, and space, then it will be colonized quickly by plants well suited to that environment. Many invasive plants are early colonizers well adapted to high resource conditions; therefore, invasive plant removal may facilitate recolonization by new invasive plants if those resources aren’t sequestered. Consider installation of early successional native plants that are also well suited to high resource environments and grow quickly to utilize the resources. Unlike invasive plants,

Page 36 of 47 these rapidly growing native species will not preclude establishment of later successional plant communities. Alternatively, if the invasive plant removed is a small patch within a larger native plant community, then limited resources are released and the small patch may revegetate from adjacent native species.

x What are the long term management goals for this area? What is the proposed use of this property? Should the site be revegetated with native species or is this a landscaped area? Either way, non-invasive replacement plant species should be selected to utilize released resources. Will this site be continually mowed or graded? If so, then revegetation may not be a cost effective approach. For sites where continual disturbance is anticipated, then annual invasive plant maintenance will be necessary unless there is a change in land management practices. If the site goal is to establish a native shrub and/or tree canopy, invasive plant management would continue until the native species are taller than the herbaceous understory layer. Then the native plants would be ‘free to grow’ and ongoing site maintenance would be fairly limited.

Given these considerations, invasive plant removal within the City will be accompanied by a revegetation plan unless the following situations apply: 1. When removal is conducted in a road right of way where there is ongoing mowing and re-grading in the shoulder to improve sight distance and drainage. 2. When the invasive patch removed is so small and it is surrounded by native species that it will likely revegetate with native species.

5.6 Vector Control

In addition to control and restoration, the City should also work to prevent the introduction of new invasive plants. The regulatory code changes (development and re- development requirements and a noxious weed law), evaluation of project specifications (for cleaning equipment), education and outreach programs (aimed specifically at gardeners), and coordination efforts proposed will minimize the number of new plant introductions. The City will also work with our partners to develop a program to visit local nurseries and report any ODA noxious weed species found for sale. PP&R should post information at kiosks about the potential for hikers to spread invasive plants. The monitoring component of the EDRR program will evaluate reports of potential new introductions and treat those species when they arrive before they become large established patches. The EDRR program will also monitor areas between known populations to locate any new populations. Some vectors will be more difficult to control at the local level. For example, the Port of Portland already has a program to investigate incoming cargo. The City will meet with the Port to discuss their existing program and any potential improvements. Internet sales and gardeners trading plants are also potential sources of introduction. This source of introduction will be targeted through specific education and outreach targeted to gardeners because the City does not have regulatory authority or resources to regulate internet sales.

Page 37 of 47 Chapter 6: Costs and Funding Sources

6.1 Costs

This chapter estimates how much it would cost to both partially and completely eradicate invasive plants within the City. Because complete eradication would be very expensive, this chapter outlines the cost to implement the policy and regulatory goal changes, outreach and education goals, and control priorities outlined in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report. Table 5 contains a summary of the costs.

The cost of complete eradication of invasive plants within the City of Portland can be estimated for a five year period using the PP&R Natural Areas Inventory Data and the BOP Natural Areas Vegetation Inventory. PP&R data reports that invasive plants range from 13-40% coverage and the BOP report documents over 32,164 acres of vegetated land within City limits (Appendix D). Multiplication of the percent coverage of invasive plants by the vegetated land indicates that there is likely more than 4,181 – 12,865 acres of invasive plants within the City.

The BES Revegetation Team estimates the cost of invasive plant removal and native plant revegetation at $12,000 per acre over a five year project span. Thus, over a five year time period, the City would spend $50-154 million dollars on invasive plant control and revegetation to eradicate invasive plants. The cost estimate does not include the additional staff that would be required to provide oversight for management of the contracted staff to implement the controls. The cost is also underestimated because the BOP inventory does not include all vegetated land in the City and the PP&R data is probably on the low range. Thus, an invasive plant management program that completely eradicated all invasive plants in the City of Portland would cost over $30 million dollars per year for five years. In addition, there would be costs associated with an ongoing maintenance program, albeit slightly lower, to maintain these weed-free conditions in our natural areas.

Although expensive, the cost of eradicating invasive plants should be viewed in the context of expected benefits and avoided costs. The cost should also be viewed in the context of the investment the City is making in its lands and infrastructure overall. For example, in fiscal year 2006-2007, the City invested $90 million dollars in parks, recreation and culture, $357 million dollars in public safety, $175 million dollars in transportation and parking, and $415 million dollars in public utilities (City of Portland 2006).

However, there may be ways to optimize the use of public resources and achieve key goals for invasives management without accruing the costs of full eradication. For now, it is recommended that the City focus on implementing the management priorities and strategies outlined in Chapters 4 and 5.

Program costs could also be reduced through partnerships with other agencies and non-profit organizations. For example, the TRLC Backyard Habitat Program is currently being expanded and the project proponents are seeking approximately $3,700 each

Page 38 of 47 from four agencies so that each funding partner sponsors 0.25 FTE to implement this program. This interagency and non-profit partnership is a very inexpensive way to implement the outreach elements described in Section 5.2.

6.1.1 Staffing Costs

The staff costs described in this chapter are in addition to the existing staff and budget described in Chapter 2 and Appendix D of this report.

Implementation of the policy, code and enforcement recommendations presented in Chapter 5 will require one additional staff in BOP and that position would transfer to BDS once code and policy was adopted. One FTE in BOP would evaluate and develop recommended policy and code packages, update the Portland Plant list to include invasive plant priority rankings, and ensure that broader City policies such as the Portland Plan adequately address invasive plants. The FTE in BDS would have plant identification expertise and their role would be to enforce current planting and mitigation requirements as well as invasive plant regulations. The cost to implement these recommended actions is estimated to be $75,000 per year in ongoing funds.

The Water Bureau requested an invasive species coordinator as part of their fiscal year 2008-2009 budget. Based upon an informal agreement with the Sandy River Basin Partners, the Water Bureau will provide a portion of the $9 million dollars received from the Habitat Conservation Plan towards invasive plant removal efforts in the Sandy River basin.

As outlined in Chapter 2, Operations Maintenance manages approximately 900 acres of vegetation within the right of way and landscaped roadside features. They do not have a horticulturist on staff to evaluate their vegetation management practices. Thus, this strategy recommends a horticulturist position to help them develop a program that integrates invasive plant control into the Operations Maintenance program. This $75,000 per year would start with program development, but they would also coordinate with BES and implement invasive plant control efforts within the right of way.

Currently, BES has staffed a part-time FTE to develop this invasive plant strategy and to implement the early action items described in this report. If continually funded, this position would implement the three year work plan and ten year goals. If the EDRR program is funded, then this would require additional BES staff to implement those control efforts. There would also need to be one BES staff person to develop and implement an adult outreach program. Thus, the BES staffing costs range from $75,000 to $150,000.

6.1.2 Control Costs

The initial cost estimate for implementing an EDRR control program has been based on the amount that CWS spends on their control efforts. In the last two years, they have dedicated $70,000 - $100,000 on knotweed and garlic mustard control efforts. Program development, invasive plant inventory, landowner outreach, and contractor oversight is

Page 39 of 47 implemented by one staff member. Therefore, the initial cost estimate for a start-up EDRR program is $70,000 in contractor funded controls plus the one BES staff member outlined above. Once this program gets initiated, the annual EDRR program costs might be determined to be more or less than that amount. However, using a cost of $327 per acre for herbicide application would treat approximately 200 acres with a $70,000 budget. That cost per acre is high because EDRR treatments would likely be small patchy areas. In addition, herbicide application would not be the only methods used, but this cost estimate would likely cover other treatment methods. Another alternative to hiring sub-contractors to implement controls, would be to hire a second full time staff for this purpose. This would be more cost effective because the treatment areas would be small and this staff could also assist with inventory, database development, tracking and reporting treatments, obtaining property access permission, and outreach and education.

Once hired, the Water Bureau invasive plant coordinator would need to determine how much annual budget is needed for control efforts on Water Bureau property. Some of the control could be conducted with existing operations staff so just having this coordinator position would facilitate some controls. With an additional $25,000 budget, this staff could prioritize how that might be used for high priority control projects. However, as described above, a $70,000 - $100,000 weed control budget is about the limit for one full time staff to coordinate invasive plant removal and native plant revegetation efforts using hired sub-contractors to implement the control efforts.

Once hired, the Operations Maintenance horticulturalist would need to determine how much annual operating budget is needed for control efforts in City right of way. This staff would work closely with the EDRR program coordinator to prioritize control efforts. Some of the control could be conducted with existing operations staff so just having this coordinator position would facilitate some controls. Depending upon the species present, some of the EDRR program funding might also be used in the right of way. With an additional $25,000 budget, this staff could prioritize how that might be used for high priority control projects within the right of way.

PP&R has developed a program to “protect the best” habitat. This program focuses on preventing the damage from weed infestations in areas that have not yet been heavily invaded (see Appendix D for more information). Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008 is the first year of program implementation and PP&R has received $254,000 to hire five botanical technicians to manage 725 acres of high priority areas. This program has been funded by FY2007-2008 money allocated by City Council and future funding has not been designated to continue this program. Over the 20 year period for the Protect the Best program, PP&R hopes to improve the condition of 2,720 acres. This strategy report proposes finding a long term funding source of $254,000 per year to continue to implement this program (Table 5).

From 2006 – 2009, PP&R worked with BES staff to remove invasive species on 500 acres of PP&R property and adjacent private land as part of the Wildfire Risk Reduction program. This project was funded by a grant from FEMA; however, this work should be

Page 40 of 47 continued. Continuation of this program would cost $45,000 – $75,000 per year and it would implement new control efforts on 30 acres per year and manage invasive species removal efforts on several hundred acres per year. The lower cost estimate would be for sites that only needed invasive plant removal and the higher cost estimate includes revegetation with a native understory community.

As described in Appendix D, the majority of the operating costs for the BES Revegetation Program are recovered through project implementation. However, to continue operating at the current level of service, the BES Revegetation Program will need a stable source of funding ranging from $100,000 to $750,000 per year starting in fiscal year 2010.

Each AmeriCorps staff costs the City $8,000, so a team of five would cost $40,000. This team would implement invasive species removal in PP&R and the right of way, as well as help implement an adult outreach program and possibly help facilitate additional volunteer work parties. It is anticipated that this crew could remove invasive species on approximately 2,500 acres in one year (five staff conducting invasive plant removal for 20 hours per week for 50 weeks at a rate of 0.1 acre per hour per staff).

6.2 Potential Funding Sources

6.2.1 Existing and Future Operating Funds

As described in Chapter 2 and Appendix D, existing operating funds are already dedicated to invasive plant removal efforts within BES, PP&R, PDC, and the Water Bureau (in town sites). To continue these efforts, the City would need to continue funding these programs in future budget cycles. Potential funding sources described in the following chapter are also depicted in Table 6.

Some of the staff positions outlined in the previous chapter could be covered with existing and future budgeted operating funds. For example, BES is currently funding a part-time FTE to develop this invasive plant strategy report. The Water Bureau is currently hiring an invasive plant coordinator.

Some of the control work could also be covered by existing operating dollars by Operations Maintenance and Water Bureau maintenance staff if those departments had someone dedicated to help coordinate invasive plant removal into existing operations staff work load.

6.2.2 Ratepayer and System Development Charges

System development charges (SDC’s) and stormwater ratepayer fees could fund the invasive plant strategy. As described in Chapter 1, invasive plants are detrimental to watershed health. They degrade water quality, increase erosion potential, limit biodiversity, degrade fish and wildlife habitat, and increase fire potential. Invasive plants also reduce tree cover, thereby reducing the air quality and stormwater interception benefits that this green infrastructure provides. SDC’s must be spent on

Page 41 of 47 capital projects so the City could investigate the feasibility of using SDC’s for vegetation management in stormwater facilities. Other public utilities, such as CWS, have funded invasive plant removal through ratepayer dollars. A voluntary contribution program could generate $5,900 – $737,000 depending upon the participation rate and the amount of contribution (Table 7).

A portion of the invasive plant strategy will be funded by the Grey to Green Initiative. The Grey to Green initiative is a green infrastructure proposal by City Commissioner Sam Adams. This $5 million dollar annual request has been granted by City Council for FY2008-2009. The Grey to Green proposal requests funding for land acquisition, ecoroofs, green streets, invasive plant removal and revegetation, culvert upgrades, and street and yard trees. The portion of the $5 million dollar budget allocated to an invasive plant program is approximately $470,000 to fund two FTE in BES that would develop and implement an EDRR program, one FTE in BOP, and $250,000 towards PP&R Protect the Best program. The two FTE in BES have been funded as ongoing positions; however, the funding for the Protect the Best program and BOP position will have to be re-negotiated annually for FY2009-2010 through 2012-2013.

6.2.3 Tax Revenue and Incentive Based Program

The City could also consider a land tax dedicated to funding invasive plant control. This would be similar to a Washington State program in which landowners pay $1.50 per parcel plus $0.09 per acre per year. There are approximately 190,000 taxlots and approximately 80,000 acres of privately owned land in the City of Portland. Therefore, a similar fee based system would generate $1.50*(190,000) = $285,000 plus $0.09*80,000 acres = $7,200 for a total of $292,200. The average lot size is 0.3 acre so the average taxpayer would pay $1.53 per year towards this program. The City could also propose to revise the fees that Washington uses to adequately fund this program. For example, if the fee per tax lot owned was $2.50, then that would raise over $470,000. A fee per tax lot of $4.68 per tax lot would raise $890,000 towards implementing this strategy. The cost per acre fees could also be further evaluated to determine if that would burden any specific landowner.

An incentive program could be developed that would waive or reduce the land taxes if a property owner participated in a backyard habitat certification program. Given the amount of property taxes proposed, a $5 decrease in property tax might not be a huge incentive, but it is an incentive nonetheless. The cost impact of an incentive program would also need to be calculated to determine how that would affect the revenue source for program funding.

6.2.4 Grants

In the 2007-2009 biennium, ODA will dedicate $2.3 million dollars in grant funded weed control projects throughout Oregon. The federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) also funds weed control projects through their Oregon Challenge Cost Share grant program. This program typically funds projects up to $50,000 and requires a 1:1 match. BLM has funded projects in the Portland area for approximately $10,000.

Page 42 of 47 Other grant sources available include Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, NOAA, Portland General Electric (TNC), and the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership. However, these grant sources are specific to projects that enhance endangered species and specifically fish habitat. Therefore, invasive plant removal and revegetation efforts that are combined with larger habitat enhancement projects may be funded by these sources. However, these (and many other grant funding sources) cannot be used solely for invasive plant removal and revegetation efforts.

The City has been successful in obtaining grant funds for weed control from ODA. However, grant funding may not be the best way to develop an invasive plant management program. Reliance upon grants for control is not ideal because they are often inconsistent, provide small amounts of funding, and do not fund the staff costs required to implement a program. In addition, it takes a lot of time to apply for grants without any guarantee for obtaining those funds. For example, in 2007, the City (BES, PP&R, and Operations Maintenance) teamed with CWS and TRLC to apply for $46,130 in ODA grant funds for a multi-agency City wide effort to control garlic mustard. The grant was not approved. We obtained feedback from ODA and re-applied for the spring 2008 funding cycle. During the second submittal, the grant request was reduced to $28,030 and this was awarded to fund 2008 garlic mustard control efforts. Upcoming changes in City grant policy will also reduce our ability to seek grant funding for weed removal projects. City staff will no longer be allowed to apply for grants less than $50,000 each because of the time commitment needed for application development, accounting, and reporting. In general, grant sources are useful for removing large infestations, however, these funds should be used to supplement ongoing programs that manage small infestations before they become large problems.

6.2.5 Revenue from Mitigation Fees or Fines for Violations

The City requires mitigation to compensate for development-related impacts on significant natural resources. In some instances the City also requires replacement of trees that are removed outside of environmentally sensitive areas. The requirements to mitigate for impacts on natural resources or tree removal can, in some circumstances, be met through payment of a fee that could help fund invasives control. The City also allows property owners to pay a fee in-lieu of on-site resource enhancement on disturbed sites in Environmental Zones. This site enhancement fee is currently directed to the City’s Watershed Revegetation Program which conducts numerous projects to manage invasive plants. The City is exploring fees for mitigation, restoration, and tree planting through the River Plan and the Citywide Tree projects. Fines for violation of environmental or tree-related regulations could also potentially be directed to help fund invasives control, revegetation, and urban forest enhancement efforts.

6.2.6 Summary of Potential Funding Sources

Table 6 summarizes the potential funding sources described in this chapter. This table identifies funding sources ranging from $949,500 – $1,694,000 per year; this does not include funds from grant sources. Table 5 describes an invasive plant management

Page 43 of 47 strategy that would cost $619,000 to $1,717,000 per year. Thus, a combination of existing and future operating budget funds, the funds from the Grey to Green program, a small property tax increase, and $23,000 per year in grant funding sources could completely fund this invasive species strategy.

For FY2008-2009, the Grey to Green program will fund the EDRR program, the PP&R Protect the Best program, and one position in BOP. The Water Bureau is funding an invasive plant coordinator position. Thus, the following elements of this strategy remain unfunded:

AmeriCorps team $40,000 Wildfire Risk Reduction $75,000 BES Revegetation Program $100,000 – $750,000 Backyard Habitat Program To be identified

In addition to the items listed above, the BOP position and the PP&R Protect the Best program are only currently funded for fiscal year 2009-2010 under the Grey to Green program. Thus, an ongoing funding source will need to be identified for these elements.

Table 6 outlines potential funding sources for these additional programs. As part of the three year work plan, the Invasive Plant Coordinator will work with the City bureaus to evaluate ways to fund the remaining aspects of the invasive plant strategy.

Page 44 of 47 Chapter 7: Conclusion

If left unchecked, invasive plant species will continue to expand their coverage and further degrade water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and the open space aesthetics within the City. Each City bureau has tried to tackle invasive plants with existing budgets by setting management priorities and implementing control efforts as budgets allow. As the public gains an increased awareness about this problem, they will demand that the City increase their efforts to preserve and protect the quality of open space habitat in parks and in our backyards.

This report describes a citywide invasive plant management strategy. It recommends that vegetation management programs and projects remain the responsibility of the existing property owner or manager; however the City should establish an invasive plant coordinator who assists each bureau in implementation of invasive plant management efforts. The invasive plant coordinator position will lead the City in this important strategy by implementing the following elements of the three year work plan which will lead to achievement of the ten year goals:

x Work with BOP and BDS to evaluate and implement policy and code changes, and enforcement requirements to improve the management of invasive plants on public and private property. x Develop and implement additional outreach and education programs targeted at adults. x Coordinate invasive plant control efforts with City bureaus, the public, regional agencies and non-profit groups. x Assist PP&R with updating and development of Habitat Management Plans and Desired Future Conditions. x Assist each Bureau with identifying invasive plant control priorities. x Develop and implement an EDRR Program to control small populations of invasive plants before they become large infestations. x Evaluate the feasibility of hiring additional AmeriCorps staff to conduct invasive plant removal and adult outreach and education within City parks and road right of way. x Assist the City with securing funding sources for implementation of invasive plant control efforts.

Page 45 of 47 Chapter 8: References

Bureau of Environmental Services. 2005. Actions for Watershed Health. 2005 Portland Watershed Management Plan.

Bureau of Planning. 2006. Natural Resource Inventory Update Vegetation Mapping Project.

City of Portland. Revised 1996. Comprehensive Plant Goals and Policies. Adopted by Ordinance No. 150580 in October 1980.

City of Portland. 2006. Adopted budget in brief Fiscal year 2006-2007. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=126007

Franklin, Jerry F. and James K. Agee. 2003. Foraging a Sciences-Based National Forest Fire Policy. Issues in Science and Technology.

Jenkins, P. T. 2002. Paying for Protection from Invasive Species. Issues in Science and Technology. International Center for Technology Assessment.

Kubeck, Gwenn D. 2008. Exploring Stakeholders’ Attitudes and Beliefs Regarding Behaviors that Prevent the Spread of Invasive Species. Oregon State University Master’s Thesis.

Myers, Rian D. 1993. Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Using Vegetation: A manual of practice for coastal property owners. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication 93-30.

Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2000. Economic analysis of containment programs, damages, and production losses from noxious weeds in Oregon.

Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2005. Annual Report. Chapter Four: Noxious Weed Control. http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/plant_ann_rep05_weed.shtml

Oregon Invasive Species Council. 2005. Oregon Invasive Species Action Plan.

Rejmanek, M. and M. J. Pitcairn. 2002. When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? Proceedings of the international conference on eradication of island invasives; Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 27. Veitch, C. R. and Clout, M.N., eds.

Stinson, K. A., S.A. Campbell, J. R. Powell, B. E. Wolfe, R.M. Callaway, G.C. Thelen, S. G. Hallett, D. Prati, J. N. Klironomos. 2006. Invasive Plant Suppresses the Growth of Native Tree Seedlings by Disrupting Belowground Mutualisms. PLOS

Page 46 of 47 Biology Volume 4 Issue 5.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States, OTA-F-565. Washington DC

Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: Fact Book. Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW), Washington DC 109 pages.

Page 47 of 47 List of Appendices:

Appendix A: Invasive Plant Lists Appendix B: City of Portland Resolution 36360 Appendix C: Summary of Report Development Appendix D: Summary of City and Regional Invasive Species Control Programs Appendix E: Photos Appendix F: Tables Appendix G: Figures Appendix H: Goats memo Appendix A: Invasive Plant Lists City of Portland Invasive Species Designations

CWMA City Proposed City Designation1 Scientific Name Common Name Classification2 Classification3 Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed Nuis A A Amorpha fruticosa Indigo bush Add A A Brachypodium sylvaticum False brome Nuis A A Heracleum mantegazzianum Giant hogweed Nuis A A Hieracium aurantiacum orange hawkweed Nuis A A Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla Nuis A A Impatiens glandulifera Policemen's helmet Nuis A A Ludwigia hexapetala Water primrose Nuis A A Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle Nuis A A Phalaris aquatica Harding grass Nuis A A Phragmites australis common reed Nuis A A Phytolacca americana Pokeweed Nuis A A Pueraria lobata Kudzu Nuis A A Silybum marianum Blessed milk thistle Nuis A A Ulex europaeus Gorse Nuis A A Utricularia inflata Swollen bladderwort Nuis A A Verbena bonariensis Tall verbena Nuis A A Acer platanoides Norway Maple Nuis CB Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven Nuis B B Alliaria officinalis (petiolata) Garlic Mustard Nuis B B Buddleia davidii (except cultivars and varieties) Butterfly bush Nuis CB Centaurea biebersteinii Spotted knapweed Nuis B B Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed Nuis B B Chondrilla juncea Rush skeletonweed Nuis B B Daphne laureola* spurge laurel Add B B South American Egeria densa Waterweed Nuis B B Geranium lucidum Shining geranium Nuis B B Iris pseudacorus Yellow Flag Nuis B B Lythrum portula Spatula leaf purslane Nuis B B Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife Pro B B Myriophyllum aquaticum Parrots feather Nuis B B Polygonum coccineum Water Smartweed Nuis B B Polygonum convolvulus Climbing Bindweed Nuis B B Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed Nuis B B Polygonum polystachyum Himalayan knotweed Nuis AB Polygonum sachalinense Giant Knotweed Nuis B B Populus alba White poplar Nuis B B Ranunculus ficaria Lesser celandine Nuis B B Sisyrimbium officinale Hedge mustard Nuis B B Solanum nigrum Garden Nightshade Nuis B B Vinca major Periwinkle (large leaf) Nuis B B City of Portland Invasive Species Designation-continued

CWMA City Proposed City Designation1 Scientific Name Common Name Classification 2 Classification3 Vinca minor Periwinkle (small leaf) Nuis B B Arctium minus Common burdock Nuis BC Arrhenatherum elatius Tall oatgrass Nuis C C Betula pendula lacinata Cutleaf birch Nuis BC Centaurea pratensis Meadow knapweed Nuis C Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle Nuis C C Cirsium vulgare Common Thistle Nuis C C Clematis vitalba Traveler’s Joy Nuis C C Convolvulus arvensis Field Morning-glory Nuis C C Convolvulus seppium Lady’s-nightcap Nuis C Hawthorn, except native Crataegus sp. except suksdorfii species Nuis C C Cytisus scoparius Scot's broom Pro C C Daucus carota Queen Anne’s Lace Nuis C C Dipsaucus fullonum Common teasel Nuis C C Foeniculum vulgare Fennel Nuis C C Geranium robertianum Robert Geranium Nuis C C Geum urbanum European avens Nuis C C Hedera helix English ivy Pro C C Ilex aquafolium English Holly Nuis C C Lunaria annua Money plant Nuis DC Melissa officianalis Lemon balm Nuis BC Mentha pulegium Penny royal Nuis C C Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian Watermilfoil Nuis C C Nymphaea odorata Fragrant water lily Nuis DC Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass Pro C C Potamogeton crispus curly leaf pondweed Nuis C C Robinia pseudoacacia (except cultivars and varieties) Black locust Nuis C C Rosa eglanteria Sweet briar Nuis BC Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose Nuis BC Rubus laciniatus Evergreen Blackberry Nuis C C Senecio jacobaea Tansy Ragwort Nuis C C Solanum dulcamara Blue Bindweed Nuis C C Taeniatherum caput-medusa Medusahead Nuis C C Tanacetum vulgare Common tansy Nuis C C Conium maculatum Poison-hemlock Nuis C C Cytisus scoparius Scot’s Broom Nuis C C Hedera helix English Ivy Nuis C C Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass Nuis C C Prunus avium (except cultivars and varieties) Sweet cherry Nuis CC Rubus discolor Himalayan Blackberry Pro C C City of Portland Invasive Species Designation-continued

CWMA City Proposed City Designation1 Scientific Name Common Name Classification 2 Classification3 English, Portugese Prunus laurocerasus Laurel Nuis CC Aegopodium podagraria and variegated varieties Goutweed Nuis D D Agropyron repens Quack grass Nuis D Alopecuris pratensis Meadow foxtail Nuis CD Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernalgrass Nuis CD Bromus diandrus Ripgut Nuis CD Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome Nuis CD Bromus inermis Smooth brome-grasses Nuis CD Bromus japonicus Japanese brome-grass Nuis CD Bromus sterilis Poverty grass Nuis D D Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass Nuis D D Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Nuis D D Carduus tenufolius Slender flowered thistle Nuis D D Chicorum intybus Chicory Nuis D D Erodium cicutarium Crane’s Bill Nuis D D Euphorbia lathyrus Mole plant Nuis D D Festuca arundinacea Tall fescue Nuis CD Hieracium cespitosum Yellow hawkweed Nuis D D Hieracium laevigatum Smooth hawkweed Nuis D D Hieracium pilosella Mouse-ear hawkweed Nuis D D Holcus lanatus Velvet grass Nuis CD Houttuynia cordata Chameleon plant Nuis D D Hypericum perforatum St. John’s Wort Nuis CD Hypocharis radicata Spotted cat’s ear Nuis CD Lactuca muralis Wall lettuce Nuis CD Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Nuis CD Lapsana communis Nipplewort Nuis CD Leontodon autumnalis Fall Dandelion Nuis CD Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye daisy Nuis CD Linaria vulgaris Yellow toadflax Nuis D D Lolium multiflorum Annual ryegrass Nuis D D Lotus corniculatus Bird’s foot trefoil Nuis CD Lychnis alba White campion Nuis D D Melilotus alba Sweetclover Nuis CD Panicum capillare Witchgrass Nuis D D Parentucellia viscosa Parentucellia Nuis D D Phleum pratensis Timothy Nuis D D Poa annua Annual Bluegrass Nuis D D Polygonum aviculare Doorweed Nuis D D Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup Nuis CD City of Portland Invasive Species Designation-continued

CWMA City Proposed City Designation1 Scientific Name Common Name Classification 2 Classification3 Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum European watercress Nuis CD Rumex acetosella Red sorrel Nuis CD Rumex crispus Curly dock Nuis CD Secale cerale Cultivated rye Nuis D D Silene alba White campion Nuis D D Sonchus arvensis sp. arvensis Perennial sowthistle Nuis D D Sorbus aucuparia (except cultivars and varieties) European mountain ash Nuis D D Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion Nuis D D Trifolium arvense Hare's foot clover Nuis CD Trifolium repens White clover Nuis CD Trifolium subterraneum Subterraneum clover Nuis CD Utricularia vulgaris Common Bladderwort Nuis D D Verbascum blattaria Moth mullein Nuis D D Verbascum thapsus Mullein Nuis D D Vicia cracca Tufted Nuis CD Vicia sativa Nuis CD Vicia villosa Hairy vetch Nuis CD Vulpia myuros [Festuca myuros] Rat-tailed fescue Nuis D D Xanthium spinoseum Spiny Cocklebur Nuis D D various genera Bamboo sp. Nuis D Callitriche stagnalis Pond water starwort Nuis D D Galium odoratum Sweet woodruff Nuis E E Lamium maculatum White Nancy Nuis E E Ligustrum vulgare Privet Nuis E E Melilotus officinalis Yellow sweetclover Nuis E E Paulownia tomentosa Princess tree Nuis E E Sorghum halepense Johnson grass Nuis E E Trifolium hybridum Alsike clover Nuis E E Centaurea jacea Brown knapweed Nuis F F Linaria dalmatica sp. dalmatica Dalmation toadflax Nuis F F Lysimachia nummularia Creeping jenny Nuis F F Solanum sarrachoides Hairy Nightshade Nuis F F Laburnum watereri Golden Chain Tree Nuis F F Elodea densa (E. canadensis) Canadian Waterweed Nuis E native Equisetum arvense Common Horsetail Nuis E native Equisetum telemateia Giant Horsetail Nuis E native Lemna minor Duckweed, Water Lentil Nuis E native Rhus diversiloba Poison Oak Nuis native Clematis ligusticifolia Western Clematis Nuis native? too difficult to Juncus effusus v. effusus European soft rush Nuis tell fr. Native City of Portland Invasive Species Designation-continued

CWMA City Proposed City Designation1 Scientific Name Common Name Classification 2 Classification3 Cardaria draba Hoary cress Nuis AW Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle Nuis W W Carduus nutans Musk thistle Nuis EW Cortaderia selloana Pampas grass Nuis W W Ulmus pumila Siberian elm Nuis W W Crocosmia crocosmiflora montbretia Add W

1 Nuis/Pro/Add = Nuisance/Prohibited/Add 2 Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) classifications are defined as: A = Most invasive but still controllable with limited spread B = Most invasive, regionally abundant C = Most aggressive, widespread D = Less aggressive wildland invaders, less impact on natural systems E = Aggressive primarily in horticultural/agricultural situations. Note: this category is incomplete F = Needs more info, should be noted where it is a problem W = On the watch list 3 Proposed City classifications are the same as CWMA classification unless type is bold. Proposed City classifications are defined as: A = Currently has limited distribution within the City or may not be here yet. This species is known to be very invasive in other areas. B = High priorities for control efforts. These species currently have a somewhat limited distribution; however, they are very invasive. Controlling or limiting the spread of these species now, saves ecological damage and costly future control efforts. C = Control with time and money available. They are very invasive; however, their distribution is already quite extensive. D = Non-native and somewhat invasive. Control is recommended; however, these species are so widespread that control is a lower priority. E = Known to be aggressive in horticultural situations. F = Need more information to evaluate the invasiveness of this plant. W = Distribution should be monitored to determine how invasive it might be in Portland. Native = Native or difficult to tell from a native species; therefore, invasive species control efforts do not apply to this plant. Appendix B: City of Portland Resolution 36360 Resolution NO. 36360

Create an effective strategy for the management of invasive plant species (Resolution)

WHEREAS, the City of Portland is the owner or steward of natural resources within City parks and natural areas, rights of way, watersheds, land within environmental zones and the Willamette Greenway, scenic viewpoints and corridors, and the Bull Run watershed; and

WHEREAS, the trees and other vegetation on these private and publicly held lands are part of the vital fabric of an ecological system that provides for clean air, clean water for drinking and streams, stormwater and flood management benefits, slope stability and erosion control, and wildlife habitat for the future generations of Portlanders; and

WHEREAS, according to the leaders in the area Native American community: x the natural balance that existed under the stewardship of Native Americans brought forth rich fields of camas, wapato, and other food plants around the mouth of the Willamette River; and x natural areas still include medicinal plants such as the red willow, plants used in Native basketry and the great cedars that provided housing, clothing, and transport; and x the City is still a great passageway for the salmon and lamprey that were the foundation for the region’s vibrant economy; and x great fields of native plants vital to the Native American culture still exist and are worthy of preservation to support this living culture, to understand the natural history of the Lower Columbia Basin, and to celebrate this place as it thrived under Native stewardship and at the time of our pioneer ancestors; and x the preservation and restoration of native plant communities is especially fitting as the City and the Region celebrate the bicentennial of Lewis & Clark’s time in Oregon and the State celebrates the sesquicentennial of the Treaty of Middle Oregon; and

WHEREAS, a healthy, balance and diversity of native populations of plants support wildlife and human and economic vitality; and

WHEREAS, without adequate maintenance natural areas tend to devolve into substantial monocultures of invasive plant species such as English ivy (Hedera helix), Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus discolor), clematis (Clematis vitalba), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum); and

WHEREAS, the unchecked spread of invasive plants in natural areas may have tremendous economic consequences resulting in falling trees, powerline disruptions, landslides, wildfire, and degraded air and water quality; and

WHEREAS, the City has invested in invasive plant species management through numerous bureau programs, ordinances and plans acknowledging its responsibility to maintain natural areas; and WHEREAS, revegetation of natural areas with native plants will be most effective if it is part of larger effort to restore watersheds; and

WHEREAS, the City recognizes that regional groups, such as the Cooperative Weed Management Area, exist to effectively manage invasive plant species across multiple public jurisdictions, ownerships, ecosystems and watersheds; and

WHEREAS, the City further recognizes that although City Bureaus and community based nonprofits have been leaders at working on this issue, we are still unable to adequately protect City Natural Areas from the accelerating destruction caused by invasive plant species;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Portland commits itself to a 10-year goal to reduce noxious weeds on its lands through the containment, control and eradication of invasive plant species and the establishment of native plant communities; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that all directors of City bureaus will develop a three-year ongoing work plan to include invasive weed management as part of their regular operations, as part of a city-wide coordinated effort; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that the City of Portland will support invasive weed management efforts within city bureaus and to maintain support for cooperative weed management efforts in the region; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: The City of Portland will partner with federal and state agencies to investigate sustainable funding sources to aid in invasive weed management projects.

Adopted by the Council: November 30, 2005 GARY BLACKMER Commissioner Sam Adams Auditor of the City of Portland Prepared by Maria Thi Mai By /S/ Susan Parsons November 23, 2005 Deputy BACKING SHEET INFORMATION

AGENDA NO. 1489-2005

ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION/COUNCIL DOCUMENT NO. 36360

COMMISSIONERS VOTED AS FOLLOWS: YEAS NAYS ADAMS X LEONARD X SALTZMAN X STEN X POTTER X Appendix C: Summary of Report Development Invasive Species Management Meeting Agenda April 13, 2007

9:30-9:45 Introductions and Meeting Outcomes Meeting Outcomes x Determine how to respond to Resolution #36360 x Determine who should be involved from other bureaus x Set agenda for next steps

9:45-10:00 Background Information Goals from Resolution #36360 1. Establish a 10 year goal to reduce noxious weeds through containment, control, and eradication of invasive plant species and the establishment of native plant communities 2. Develop a 3 year ongoing work plan to include invasive weed management as part of their regular operations as part of a city-wide coordinated effort 3. Support invasive weed management efforts and maintain support for cooperative weed management efforts in the region 4. Partner with state and federal agencies to investigate sustainable funding sources to aid in invasive weed management projects

Key words in Resolution #36360 x Reduce noxious weeds x Applies to publicly owned parcels and privately owned E zones x Balance and diversity of native plant populations x Adequate management of invasive species such as He he, Ru di, Cl vi, Po cu x Unchecked spread of invasives has economic consequences x Protect natural areas from accelerating destruction

10:00-11:00 Review Project Objectives and First Year Tasks

11:00-11:30 Final Questions and Next Steps Questions 1. How much do we want to stick with what was requested by the Resolution or do we want go above and beyond that request? Would that decision be resource/staffing dependent? 2. What form will the work plan take? Will it be a report, management plan, management strategy, or something else? 3. What level of staff support for development of the work plan can we expect from bureau team members? 4. Should the 10 year goals be quantitative and should they be tiered to noxious weeds and/or invasive plants? To what land base does the 10 year goal apply?

Next Steps 1. Contact and meet with representatives from other bureaus

Handouts: Resolution #36360 Project Objectives and First Year Tasks Project Objectives and First Year Tasks April 10, 2007 Modified from Work Plan and Job Description Draft 2 June 12, 2006

Policy Objectives - Resolution Goals 1 and 2

x Identify all city code, policies and ordinances that pertain to invasive plant species. Include state (ODA) and/or federal (USDA APHIS) codes for noxious species eradication. x Identify mechanisms for code enforcement x Identify ongoing City activities that could incorporate invasive weed control and make recommendations to council and program managers x Update Portland’s Prohibited and Nuisance List based on recommendations by CWMA x Recommend new or consolidated code and policies for the City

Deliverables: The work plan could include a description of existing policies and recommended policy changes

Outreach and Education Objectives - Resolution Goal 3

x Produce materials that educate property owners, bureau staff and nursery industry on weed management techniques (including hand removal, goat herding, herbicide application, biological controls and ecological methods). This will include references to existing City documents and programs. x Identify and develop an outreach program to landowners of parcels adjacent to City- owned and managed natural areas. Provide recommendations and technical assistance to help prevent the spread of their landscape plants into the City’s Natural Area Parks. x Coordinate annual volunteer recognition and appreciation event. x Make links and connections between Friends groups to assist them with the sharing of knowledge and resources. x Develop a website that provides useful tools for invasive plant control such as pictures and descriptions of invasive plants, strategies and techniques for the control and containment of these invasive species on private land, links to available resources through other government agencies and the web. This will include references to existing City documents and programs. x Providing technical assistance to private landowners helping them to identify native and non-native plants, prioritize priority weed species for containment or control, develop a long-term land management plan and helping to identify possible labor and material resources to assist the landowner. x Function as a central point of contact for the public.

Deliverables: Outreach materials, additional web information, and the work plan will describe the outreach program developed Coordination Objectives - Resolution Goal 3

x Coordinate City’s technical assistance resources and expertise.

Objectives and First Year Tasks – Page 1 of 3 x Work with the local Nursery industry to reduce the sale of state listed noxious weeds. x Participate in regional CWMA x Write a 3 year work plan and develop 10 year goals to reduce invasive species in the City by implementing long-term protection of native vegetation and institutionalizing weed control within bureaus. x Track all weed management efforts by bureaus and citizen groups in the City of Portland.

Deliverable: Work plan that summarizes above efforts

Assessment and Monitoring Objectives – Resolution Goal 3

x Identify current and upcoming weed management opportunities based on bureau projects. x Identify and map invasive species on the property owned or managed by all City bureaus. x Consider consolidation or change in bureau portfolio for management.

Deliverable: Summarize in work plan

Control and Restoration Project Management Objective – Resolution Goal 3

x Coordinate interagency invasive species control projects

Deliverable: Summarize in work plan

Funding Objectives – Resolution Goal 4

x Summarize current examples of creative project funding such as Marissa’s upcoming position to focus on invasive species removal in parks x Explore feasibility of instituting a 1% for weeds or similar program based on development fees or other revenue sources. x Recommend grant opportunities for leveraging city operating and CIP budgets (existing projects) ie. adding value to existing projects. x Quantify funding and resource needs (by bureau) to implement the 10-yr plan x Investigate state and federal funding sources

Deliverable: Summarize in work plan

First year tasks

April 2007 – July 2007 x Create a team with 2 representatives from the following bureaus: BDS, BES, BGS, BOP, PDOT, Water, Parks to develop a 3-year ongoing plan for managing invasive species. x Create inventory of all City bureau programs, projects and policies that impact invasive species control (restoration, right-of-way spraying etc). x Hold two meetings with at least one representative from the above bureaus. Plus additional meetings with representatives from each bureau. x Create inventory of all City owned lands

Objectives and First Year Tasks – Page 2 of 3 x Begin coordinating long-term projects as described in the education and outreach and funding portions outlined in objectives.

July 2007 – December 2007 x Prepare draft work plan with input from bureau directors or their appointees. x Have draft work plan reviewed by regional CWMA and bureau team. x Begin coordinating long-term projects as described in the policy and coordination portions of the objectives. x Work plan includes: o Characterization of current City programs, projects and policies o Inventory of City owned lands (invasive species inventory?) o Recommendations for including invasive species control for each bureau o Identification of bureau resources to implement a long-term commitment to controlling invasive weeds

January 2008 x Present work plan to council. x Prepare work plan for February 2008- February 2009

Objectives and First Year Tasks – Page 3 of 3 ME M O R A N D U M Subject: Interbureau Invasive Plant Species Coordination in Response to Resolution 36360 Meeting Summary

Meeting date: Friday, April 13, 2007 Meeting attendees: Paul Ketchum, Colleen Mitchell, and Jennifer Goodridge, Willamette Watershed, BES, Lynn Barlow and Andi Gresh, Revegetation team, BES, Jim Sjulin, Mart Hughes, Mark Wilson, and John Reed, Parks and Recreation Distribution: Paul Ketchum, Colleen Mitchell, and Jennifer Goodridge, Willamette Watershed, BES, Lynn Barlow and Andi Gresh, Revegetation team, BES, Jim Sjulin, Mart Hughes, Mark Wilson, John Reed, Sandra Diedrich, Fred Nielson, and Kathy Murrin, Parks and Recreation

Topics of Discussion

This meeting was organized as an initial kick-off meeting for responding to Resolution 36360 and there will be more input from many other individuals as this project continues. The meeting generally followed the meeting agenda, however, rather than going over the specific objectives and first year work tasks, the discussion focused on answering the questions on the meeting agenda and the main topics of discussion are noted below. We will request feedback on the project objectives and first year tasks from a core working group to be identified soon.

Terminology

The resolution mentions noxious weeds and invasive weeds so there should be agreement as to the management goals selected to respond to the resolution. The general consensus was that even though the resolution used the term “noxious,” this may not have been used in it’s technical sense. We could get clarification on that from Councilor Sam Adams, however, the 3 year work plan and 10 year goals should probably address invasive species. These documents should also include definitions of noxious weed, invasive, non-native, nuisance, and prohibited species. This document should also refer to the City and/or the Cooperative Weed Management Association (CWMA) approved nuisance and prohibited plant lists as references.

Public and private land ownership

We discussed land ownership within the City because the resolution refers to both public and private land ownership. The planning department has policies that pertain to invasive species management on private land primarily through administration of greenway and environmental zoning overlays. In addition, BES works with private land owners to implement voluntary invasive species removal and native planting projects. Another issue that arises is how to deal with invasive species infestations on privately owned parcels adjacent to public lands if/when there is an invasive species removal project proposed on that public land. The issues associated with land ownership and invasive species management should be discussed in the 3 year work plan and 10 year goals document.

Even without the inclusion of private lands, managing invasive species on publicly owned land within the City limits is a large task. Some public landowners within the city include: BES, BOP, PDOT, Water bureau, BGS, BDS, PDC, ODOT, Metro, Port of Portland, and MCDD. The total publicly owned area should be quantified and possibly mapped as part of the 3 year work plan and 10 year goals document. However, the establishment of a 10 year goal to reduce invasive species may pertain to a subset of this publicly owned area.

Bureau contacts

The following individuals were suggested as possible contacts from other bureaus: Chris Scarzello and/or Roberta Jortner, Planning Dept., Michael Boyle and/or Marty Mitchell, PDOT, Marni Glick, Barbara Kreig, KC Christianson, and/or Gayle Wilson, BOM, Dick Robbins, Bill Georgeades, and/or Janet Senior, Water Bureau, Diana Holuka, BGS, Kim Parsons, BDS, and Kia Selley, PDC. Jim Sjulin suggested that John Reed and one ecologist (Mart Hughes and/or Mark Wilson) remain as primary BOP contacts although other BOP staff will likely also give feedback/input on this project.

Existing programs/projects

The document that describes the 3 year work plan and 10 year goals will incorporate the items described in the objectives as well as the following items discussed in the meeting: x Information about existing programs and projects that incorporate invasive species management. For example, the Parks IPM and weed management guidelines, BES re-vegetation operations manual, and existing invasive species information on the web site. x Existing inventories, such as the Natural Area Parkland Vegetation Inventory, which categorize the ecological health of public open space. Existing or future inventories allow land managers to focus invasive species efforts to certain areas. For example, within parkland, management goals could be developed to remove invasive species from the “healthy to good” condition parks which would mean invasive species removal on 36.8% of parkland. x Goals that are consistent with the invasive species management goals and specific projects identified within each bureau. x Identification of possible additional funding sources and realistic goals about what can be accomplished. For example, a tiered approach could outline what could be done at different funding levels. x Identification of existing partnerships between the different bureaus, with the City and private landowners, and with the City and regional agencies. For example, there is an invasive species MOU between parks and BES. There is also a MOU between the CWMA and the City. Photos and/or maps could be used to document invasive species removal projects where the City has worked with other partners to implement projects.

Response to resolution

The meeting agenda outlined goals and objectives developed to respond to the resolution. This document was drafted last summer by Parks and BES and it will continue to be modified in order to create the goals, objectives, and work tasks that respond to the resolution. We discussed the format for deliverables that respond to the resolution. An invasive species web page could be added to the City web site. Another deliverable would be an invasive species management strategy that includes a 3 year work plan and 10 year goals. This document would outline existing programs, policies, projects, and coordination efforts. In addition, it would identify additional ways to expand invasive species management efforts and outline potential funding sources for those additional efforts. It might also describe the need for additional invasive species inventory work on public land within the City. The inventory methods could be simplified by collecting field data on a sub-set of the land area in order to extrapolate the results or by using other inventory tools such as LIDAR or multispectral analysis.

Next steps

Jennifer Goodridge will contact representatives from BOP, PDOT, BOM, water bureau, BGS, BDS, Parks, and PDC to find out more information about how each bureau currently manages invasive species. BES will request a point of contact from each bureau to form a core working group to respond to the resolution. BES will revise the objectives and first year tasks based upon preliminary input from this core working group. Then, the objectives and first year tasks will be presented to Councilor Sam Adams and the bureau heads to get their support for staff participation in the core working group. Thursday May 15, 2008 Invasive Species Strategy Core Team Meeting Meeting Agenda

1. Summary of comments received a. Parks – PPR edits pages 16-19 and FEMA references b. BDS – potential fiscal impacts, mitigation proportional to impacts, appeal processes, fairness of overlay zone, code emanates from policy c. BOP – code emanates from policy, Ezone and greenway apply to public and private lands, inventory needs and cost estimates, overlay zones, cost clarification d. Water – formatting, references, Class A-C control on water bureau land, clarification about Water Bureau program information e. OFM – editorial comments in track changes f. BOM g. PDC h. BES – Intro info, Code 29, overlay/corridors/adjacent lands, outreach id successes, #’s 2. Further group discussion about specific comments a. Inventory needs and cost estimates for total eradication (comments from BOP) b. References (comment from water bureau) c. Overlay – Corridors – Adjacent lands d. Other big issues to discuss? 3. Upcoming Schedule a. May i. Set up meetings with BOP to discuss overlay zones, Parks to discuss FEMA, Re-veg to discuss priorities, others? ii. Incorporate core team edits/changes b. June i. Route draft report to community stakeholders for review and comment ii. Route draft report to wider City audience for review and comments – include Bureau directors to obtain their support iii. Consider brown bag presentation on strategy report c. July i. Incorporate comments from June review process ii. Second stakeholder meeting to plan Invasive Species Summit d. August and September – finish planning Invasive Species Summit e. October – Invasive Species Summit 4. Invasive Species Summit a. Hired JLA to help plan and coordinate b. Initial stakeholder meeting to identify goals and audience i. Preventative Strategy to prioritize protection of most valuable parcels (geographic identification). ii. Follow up on work completed since 2005 Summit. Highlight the City’s 3 year work plan and 10 year goals from the invasive species strategy report. iii. Listen, showcase, educate, share what other regional agencies are doing. Coordinate overlaps, opportunities, resources and gaps. iv. Bridging City’s effort with other agencies efforts in the Metro area. v. Broach topic of invasive animal species (potential gap). c. July stakeholder meeting will identify format, timing, and outcomes d. Core team input 5. Grey to Green funding Thursday May 15, 2008 Invasive Species Strategy Core Team Meeting Meeting Summary

Meeting attendees: James Allison, John Reed, Mark Wilson, Roberta Jortner, Richard Robbins, Rich Rice, Jeff Gray, and Jennifer Goodridge

1. Review comments We reviewed a summary of comments received and the full comments were compiled and provided as an email attachment prior to the meeting. These comments, plus all track changes will be incorporated into the strategy report. 2. Further group discussion about specific comments a. Inventory needs (comment from BOP) The group discussed the need for additional inventory work. While we agreed that it would be useful to update the Parks natural areas vegetation inventory, the original inventory took 4 years (with two staff) to complete. Roberta stated that more inventory data might help us set control priorities. I feel like we have enough data to set control priorities and I’m not sure we want to use additional resources on additional inventory data collection. I asked the group if they see data gaps where we need more inventory information and other than repeating the parks inventory, no other data gaps were mentioned. We also discussed inventory data needs for assessing success. Success will be reported in terms of what controls did or did not happen. For example, how many acres treated and which species were prevented from becoming established. The invasive species removal work will never be done because it is part of ongoing infrastructure maintenance. b. Cost estimates for total eradication (comment from BOP) The report states that eradication is too expensive and that statement might be oversimplified. Can we look at other jurisdictions who have decided not to tackle complete eradication? Do we need to state that we won’t ever eradicate or would it be more appropriate to state that we plan to contain/control/prevent new invasions until the next level can be funded. John Reed also wanted something added to the report to document that the costs of eradication are likely underestimated because the percent cover of invasive species includes some very high quality areas within Forest Park. When you extrapolate that to Citywide, the percent cover of invasives is likely much higher – he estimated it is probably closer to 70% cover of invasives if the data were not skewed by Forest Park. Roberta also pointed out that the natural resource inventory vegetation mapping project was limited to estimating vegetation within a certain radius of ezone, greenway, special habitat areas, etc. So the estimates of vegetated land within the City are also likely underestimated and this should be stated in the report. c. References (comment from water bureau) The group thought that adding references to the economic, fire ecology, and erosion sections of the introduction would make Section 1 stronger. The group thinks that someone should help me with this task so if anyone is interested, let me know - Mark wants to add some information to the Fire section of the introduction. d. Overlay – Corridors – Adjacent lands We discussed the importance of the interface between private and public lands in achieving control of invasive species. However, we agreed that this will not likely occur through an overlay zone. It will likely occur through outreach to landowners, such as the backyard habitat certification program and through voluntary removal. The City can provide technical assistance to these landowners and also work cooperatively with them through landowner agreements. There is some overlap with this overlay zone concept and the wildfire hazard zones. If we want to implement some sort of requirement for property owners to remove certain species from their land, this would likely fall under Title 3 nuisance code. We need to remember any invasive species removal that we require of private property owners will also be required on public lands. 3. Upcoming Schedule We reviewed the schedule in the meeting agenda. The external stakeholder groups are still to be defined. For example, will it include non-invasive species people such as the homebuilders association? Since it covers the Bull Run and properties adjacent to the Sandy River, will it include entities such as the CWMA in that area or other government entities? I said I would get direction from Paul re. defining the stakeholder group and the format for their review and comment. 4. Invasive Species Summit We reviewed the invasive species summit details outlined in the agenda. This group suggested that the summit also include some invasive species removal success stories that have occurred since 2005 and not just the report. For example, we should include some before/after pictures of on-the- ground removal projects. The backyard habitat program has some good before/after pictures. We might also consider a way to honor Sandy Diedrich through some sort of scholarship, award, or slides. This group would also like to have input on the format of the upcoming event. 5. Grey to Green funding We reviewed the invasives component of the Grey to Green program. See the one page handout that was provided. Invasive Species Management Meeting Agenda July 25, 2007

1:30-1:45 Introductions and comments from Sam

1:45-2:30 Review outline

2:30-3:00 Feedback on outline

Next Steps

x Comments on the outline x Do you want to write Section II for your bureau? x Inventory to assess acreages of invassives x Section IV D & E – setting priorities and goals

Handouts: Outline

Objectives and First Year Tasks – Page 1 of 3 ME M O R A N D U M Subject: Invasive Plant Species Strategy Outline Meeting Summary

Meeting date: Thursday, July 26, 2007 Meeting attendees: Sam Adams, Tom Miller, Lisa Libby, Paul Ketchum, Mitch Bixby, Jennifer Goodridge, Lynn Barlow, James Allison, Darian Santer, John Reed, Mark Wilson, Selene O’dell, Roberta Jortner, Rich Rice, Richard Robbins, Kristy Branson, and Marty Mitchell

Thank you for attending the inter-bureau meeting to discuss invasive species management at the City. At the meeting, we reviewed the outline for the Invasive Species Strategy document. During the meeting, I also collected the following comments that are organized in the outline format:

I. Introduction x Add fire to invasive species problems x Include an explanation of the purpose of the 3 year plan. x Consider the audience for the report and explain why this is critical and what will happen if we don’t act on this problem. Relate this issue to everyday people and provide incentives x Include some before/after pictures x Discuss stormwater and native plants x Consider open space as green infrastructure to maintain x Include a description of the amount of city owned land and acreage of invasives

II. Existing City Programs x Include information about Water Bureau HCP and invasive species removal in riparian areas adjacent to the Sandy River x Water bureau may add an invasive species staff in next budget cycle x Include a description of Parks $ for next summer efforts to implement “protect the best” policy

III Regional Invasive Species Control x As an appendix, review the funding mechanisms, priorities, methods, overall plan, strengths/weaknesses, and lessons learned for several other agencies x Consider reviewing the programs at the following agencies: o Utilities such as PGE, BPA, Pacificorp, Port of Portland, MCDD, o Road dept’s such as CALTRANS, ODOT, WSDOT o Mt. Hood National Forest o THPRD o SWCD’s, o City of Eugene o NRCS IV Proposed Work Plan Policy x Label section as Public Property rather than herbicide use x IPM gets re-written in DSL/Corps/Local permits – address this x Native, nuisance, and prohibited plant lists should be consistent with urban forestry, stormwater, and erosion control plant lists x Further explore the fire mitigation and enforcement sections of the code

Outreach and Education x Website should be interactive with a blog x Could integrate with Naturescaping x Involve gardeners x How to dispose of invasives x Partner with retailers and wholesalers x Consider a property certification program

Assessment x Inventory should quantify what it will take to eradicate invasives in time and resources

Control and Restoration x Include revegetation and describe that if the correct vegetation type is established this can reduce future invasions x Natural methods also considered such as burning, flooding

Funding x Very difficult to project future costs of maintenance

Next steps x Please send any additional comments on the outline by August 20th x Please let me know if your bureau wants to write Section II. If so, I will send some guidelines as to what I am hoping to include. If not, I will write a draft and send it to you for review. x We are working on the inventory and setting goals and priorities so Mitch and I will be contacting you with questions and information requests.

Thanks! ME M O R A N D U M Subject: Invasive Plant Species Strategy Meeting Summary

Meeting date: Thursday, December 6, 2007 Meeting attendees: Paul Ketchum, Mitch Bixby, Marc Peters, Jennifer Goodridge, Lynn Barlow, Darian Santer, John Reed, Rich Rice, Richard Robbins, Diana Holuka, and Mike Boyle

Thank you for attending the inter-bureau meeting to discuss invasive species management at the City. At the meeting, we discussed Sections 1-3 of the report and reviewed the outline for Section 4 of the report. We also discussed the potential of another invasive species summit in spring 2008. Here is a summary of some of the comments/discussion from the meeting.

Section 1 Introduction Try to spend more time on Section 1 by giving more examples of problems and localized concerns, costs to biodiversity, problems with erosion, examples of species-specific interactions, lost opportunities, and how biodiversity relates to neotropical bird habitat.

The report should also incorporate maps to depict our GIS investigation of the public ownership layer, the parks health inventory, and pictures of invasive plants. Perhaps the pictures could point back to specific locations on the maps.

Section 2 Description of Existing Programs I have received some comments from PDC, OMF, Water, BES, and BOP. OMF provided a couple more edits at the meeting. I have more comments to incorporate from Mitch and the Water bureau. BES and OMF are planning to send more comments. Please send all comments on Sections 1-3 by Wednesday January 9th.

The water bureau also owns some land in East Multnomah County such as Dodge park and many easements that are not described in the report. They will send me a table that describes these properties and we will summarize the data and add it to the report. We will likely just mention easements and not get into too much detail about those smaller areas other than mentioning that they exist.

Rich also suggested that Mitch ground truth some of the water bureau sites to calibrate with the percent cover data that he has provided.

Section 4 Outline

Include the public awareness/amount of cover graph that was drawn on the white board.

In the EDRR program, how would you deal with plants not on the prioritized list? Address that in the report. Add a discussion of inventory, data tracking, and assessment/reporting needs. We can use some of the BES revegetation team data tracking. We should investigate whether we could use the WIMS data tracking system for tracking and reporting invasives control efforts on Parks land.

The water bureau has requested an invasive species coordinator in their upcoming budget, but they are not sure if it will get funded. Would that person also have a budget to implement control efforts?

Parks ‘protect the best’ program is not the only venue for invasives removal within that bureau. Does Parks have other suggestions for what should be proposed for part of this strategy? If so, please get back to me with a description of this effort or send me a meeting invite to further discuss that topic.

Be sure to include the noxious weed law as part of the 3 year work plan and 10 year goals.

We discussed the feasibility of removing vertical coverage of ivy and clematis. This seems like a good thing, but it will be difficult to quantify how much it would cost and how long it would take. Ivy grows back approximately 6’ per year so sites would not need to be re-visited every year, however, they would need to be re-visited every 2-5 years to keep ivy out of the tree canopy.

Under funding, add strategies such as the Grey to Green program.

Please send any additional comments on the outline for Section 4 by Wednesday January 9th.

Summit We need to decide who is the audience? For example, is it intended for the public or should we have a mostly internal City venue where we brief City staff on this project – the ones who have not been part of the core working group to develop the strategy.

What is the goal of this summit? If the strategy report is ready, then this might be a good time to present that information, however, some meeting attendees expressed concern that spring might be too soon for that.

What is the format of the summite? Will it be a Q/A session like last time or more like a “conference” where we have a series of presentations with time for questions to follow the presentations.

I would like to invite Jim Gores, ODFW invasive species coordinator to come speak about invasive animals.

Should the City have a booth at the Yard and Garden show at the end of February at the Convention Center? This might be a good venue for increasing awareness about invasive plants to gardeners.

Next steps x Compile comments on Sections 1-3 and finalize a draft of Section 4 x Schedule a meeting with Lisa to discuss the 2008 summit x Work with Linc Mann to incorporate Paul’s comments on the web site, then that will get routed for stakeholder review x Continue to meet with stakeholders (TNC, OPB, OSU Extension, and OAN) on an outreach publication for gardeners that will include about 20 invasive horticultural plants and proposed alternatives. The timeline is to have this completed in April 2008. Invasive Species Setting Goals and Priorities August 29, 2007 Meeting Attendees: Mark Wilson, John Reed, Jennifer Goodridge, Lynn Barlow, Darian Santer, Paul Ketcham, Mitch Bixby

Resolution 36360 x 3 year work plan to include invasive weed management as part of regular operations as part of a city-wide coordinated effort (Strategy document) x 10 year goal to reduce noxious weeds on lands through containment, control and eradication of invasive plant species and establishment of native communities

Types of Control Priorities a) Early detection and rapid response b) Land ownership (public, private, new development) c) Habitat Quality d) Species e) Project

10 Year Goals x Define species we want to control o Prohibited or nuisance o ODA list o CWMA like list o City invasive list x Define the land base o City owned/managed open space ƒ Parks, BOM, PDC, Water bureau, BES o City owned land o Open space within the City of Portland o Private and public open space o All of City limits x Define the players o Parks land o All bureau owned land x Define control goals o Same for the whole City of Portland o Different for each bureau ƒ Water bureau – no invasives on sites within City and weed free roadsides within the Bull Run ƒ Parks – 10 year increments for “protect the best” plan ƒ BOM – keeping roadsides free of some list of species ƒ PDC – inventory and keeping sites free of some list of species ƒ BES – inventory and keeping sites free of some list of species ƒ Planning – implementation of invasive species regulations x How to implement goals Invasive Plant Strategy Update NRT Management Team Meeting 2-22-08

1. Invasive Plant Strategy Development Process a. Resolution 36360 – 3 Year Work Plan and 10 Year Goals b. Develop Inter-Bureau Team (PDC, BES, Parks, BOP, BOM, BDS, Water) c. Inter-Bureau Team meetings (July and December) d. Meetings with individual inter-bureau team members 2. Status Update a. Strategy Report Outline (July team approval) I. Introduction II. Description of Existing Programs III. Descriptions of Regional Programs IV. 3 Year Work Plan 1. Policy 2. Outreach 3. Coordination (Interbureau and Interagency) 4. Assessment (Inventory and Control Priorities) 5. Control and Restoration (Methods, Management Plans, Implementation) V. 10 Year Goals VI. Costs and Funding VII. Summary b. Summer 2007 – Bureau Descriptions c. Fall 07 – Winter 08 Section I-III of report d. Winter -Spring 08 Sections IV – VII e. Spring 08 Interbureau Review f. June 2008 Invasive Species Summit 3. Examples of Early Implementation a. Drafted control priority species list for EDRR program b. Inventory (BOM, Water bureau) c. Control (garlic mustard) d. Coordination (OAN, CWMA, OISC meetings, BOM, TNC, SWCD’s, TRLC, CWS) e. Outreach (Trainings, Booths, and GardenSmart publication) f. Funding (ODA grant, Grey to Green) Invasive Species Strategy (3 year work plan) Jennifer Goodridge, Environmental Specialist, Willamette Watershed July 16, 2007

I.Introduction

A. What is Invasive? 1. Definitions 2. Portland Plant Lists

B. Why are invasive species a problem? 1. Watershed health 2. Economics 3. Erosion control 4. Local examples 5. Resolution 36360

II.Existing City Programs

A. Parks and Recreation 1. Documents Vision 2020 Plan, Integrated Pest Management Program, Weed Management Guidelines, Natural Area Parkland Vegetation Inventory, IPM News, Vision 2020 Plan, Parks Ecosystem Management Program, Urban Forest Management Plan, Urban Forest Action Plan 2. Invasive species control efforts

B. Bureau of Environmental Services 1. Watershed Groups a) Resource Enhancement Projects b) Coordination with ODA, Watershed Councils, Parks, neighborhood groups 2. Re-vegetation team a) Description of Program b) Invasive Species Control Metrics

C. Water Bureau 1. Bull Run 2. Other properties

D. Bureaus of Development Services and Planning 1. Native, Nuisance, Prohibited Plant Lists 2. Environmental Zones 3. Greenway Overlay 4. Landscape Code 5. Mitigation Requirements 6. Enforcement 7. Resource Enhancement Projects

E. Transportation/Bureau of Maintenance 1. Department goals 2. Defining the ROW (PDOT/ODOT) 3. Budget 4. Street Cleaning a) Herbicide use b) Mowing/brush-cutting c) Street cleaning 5. Stormwater

F. Portland Development Commission 1. Chapter 29 of City Code 2. Description of sites maintained

G. Summary of Existing City Resources 1. Comparison Chart III.Regional Invasive Species Control

A. Clean Water Services and Water Environment Services 1. Description of programs 2. Program funding 3. Invasive species control 4. Enforcement

B. State of Washington, City of Seattle, and King County 1. State of Washington a) Noxious Weed Law b) Monetary Penalties c) Tax assessments 16 Counties ($1.50 plus 0.09 per acre) 2. King County Noxious Weed Control a) Program description (goals, funding (92% tax base), staffing) b) Education and Outreach 3. City of Seattle Parks and Recreation a) Program description b) Seattle Strategic Plan

C. Metro 1. Program description 2. Program funding 3. Invasive species control efforts D. Oregon Department of State Lands 1. Program description 2. Program funding 3. Invasive species control efforts IV.Proposed Work Plan

A. Policy 1. Herbicide use a) Enhancement projects in greenway b) Private property 2. New development 3. Enforcement 4. Wildfire Hazard Areas 5. Urban Forestry List revisions 6. State or local noxious weed law 7. Updates to the native, nuisance, prohibited plant lists

B. Outreach and Education 1. Web site 2. Landowners adjacent to natural areas 3. Technical assistance to landowners 4. Natives outreach materials 5. Ongoing classes and presentations a) Plant id b) Control methods 6. Lead by example

C. Coordination 1. Tracking invasive species control efforts amongst the bureaus 2. Nursery Association 3. CWMA 4. Adjacent jurisdictions 5. E & W Multnomah SWCD 6. ODOT

D. Assessment 1. Invasive species inventory a) City owned land b) Acreage of invasives 2. Control priorities a) Early Detection and Response b) Land Ownership (Public, new development, private) c) Habitat Quality d) Species e) Projects E. Control and Restoration 1. Methods a) IPM plan b) Vegetation Management Guidance c) City-wide policy for methods (goats, roadsides, etc.)

2. Within each bureau (PDOT, BES, BDS/Planning, PDC, Parks) a) Additional staff b) Additional funds c) Agency-wide coordinated oversight

3. Grant funded projects 4. Sub-contracted control 5. 10 year goals

F. Funding 1. Existing operating funds 2. Revenue based program 3. Summary of potential grants 4. Externally (State or Federal) funded position(s) V.Summary Appendix D: Summary of City and Regional (Local, State, and Federal) Invasive Species Control Programs City Programs

Development of the City of Portland invasive plant strategy involved working with each bureau that owns or manages land with open space, because if there is open space, there are probably invasive plant management issues. The following sections describe the responsibilities of each bureau and the number of acres of land that they own or manage. This text also estimates the number of staff and/or budget dedicated to land management within each bureau. If the bureau has any specific policies or programs that relate to invasive plant management, then those are also outlined.

Portland Parks and Recreation

PP&R develops and maintains parks, natural areas, and urban forest so that they are accessible to the public for recreation, gathering places, solitude, and community building opportunities. PP&R also provides recreational programs that operate within parks, swimming pools, and community centers. Park site management is divided into the five park zones: downtown, southwest, outer east, north/northeast, and southeast. There are approximately 103 full time City staff who manage the 800+ acres of developed parks and maintained areas within hybrid parks (parks with natural and maintained landscapes). These staff conduct graffiti removal, bathroom cleaning, litter pick up, irrigation repairs, edging, turf management, drainage repair, paving, fence repairs, trash facility management, and weed management in landscaped beds, fence lines, and other sites. In addition to the 103 staff, there are also temporary and seasonal employees (the number varies) that implement grounds management.

In addition to the staff assigned to management zones for developed parks and facilities, PP&R has a City Nature Department with 11.5 staff (three ecologists, three horticulturalists, one IPM coordinator, two technicians, and two and a half volunteer coordinators) dedicated to natural area and hybrid park management and 24 staff dedicated to urban forestry resource management. The urban forestry staff conducts emergency tree removal and tree maintenance in natural areas; they do not have time to dedicate to invasive plant removal projects. The nine staff (ecologists, horticulturists and technicians), split the equivalent of approximately 1 FTE among them to conduct invasive plant removal. These staff spend the majority of their time on overall site management tasks, which include interacting with the public (media, neighborhood association, “friends of” groups, etc.), interbureau coordination, trash removal, site assessment, inventory, monitoring, cleaning bathrooms, opening gates, repair and operation of irrigation systems, planning and project coordination. In addition, the IPM coordinator’s and at least some of the horticulturist’s time is dedicated to pest management in developed parks. PP&R natural areas management budget allocates $125,000 per year to the BES Revegetation Program for invasive plant removal, native plant installation, and maintenance within natural areas. The remaining vegetation management within over 8,000 acres of natural areas parks is conducted by one FTE funded by existing operating budgets, volunteer efforts, and grant funding. For each new natural area added, PP&R gets $1,500 per acre per year for operation and maintenance. Most of this budget is dedicated to existing staff time for the above described parks operations. For comparison, the BES Revegetation Team estimates that site revegetation costs $2,400 per year per acre to remove invasive plants and re- establish native vegetation.

In 2005, PP&R staff estimated that they spent over $500,000 dollars total on weed management. This number includes maintaining natural areas, golf courses, ball fields, and staff time using an estimated FTE percentage assigned to weed management duties.

The following programs, policies, and documents outline natural area management practices on PP&R property: x Vision 2020 Plan (1999) – This document defines the different types of parks within the City which include neighborhood parks, community parks, regional parks, habitat parks, urban parks, public gardens, community gardens, trailways, City landscape sites, golf courses, and special lands (e.g., Portland International Raceway). This plan was developed with significant community involvement to document the history, existing conditions, recreation trends, partners, acquisition, and operations within our parks. It outlines the regulations, issues, and management recommendations for natural areas. This report describes that invasive plants are an issue for PP&R management. It also documents that funding levels for the natural resource program are 10-50% less than other natural resource management programs across the country when compared on a per acre basis. This plan outlines the need for an ecosystem management program that includes an inventory, statements of desired future conditions, assessments, prescriptions for intervention, monitoring, and implementation of adaptive management programs. x Parks Ecosystem Management Planning – This document explains a comprehensive adaptive management planning approach to improving the ecological health of PP&R natural areas and hybrid parks. The planning process includes: inventory and survey, desired future condition, assessment, prescription and intervention, and monitoring. Invasive plants are often one of the ecological threats identified as part of the site assessment. Thus, invasive plant management is part of the prescription, intervention, and monitoring steps in the parks ecosystem management plans. The status of management plans varies throughout the parks; many have been completed, but they are in a variety of formats. The following elements are incorporated into this planning approach: o Natural Area Parkland Vegetation Inventory – PP&R started conducting natural areas vegetation surveys in 2003. The data was used to assign areas one of five rankings to each area: healthy, good, fair, poor, or severely degraded. A distribution of these rankings is depicted in Figure 6. To date, 7,802 acres have been surveyed and Table 8 summarizes the invasive species percent cover data. The species included in Table 8 do not constitute all non-native plants encountered in the data set; rather, BES selected plants ranked A-C (from rankings in Appendix A) for this data analysis. The results of this data analysis indicated: ƒ Forest Park accounted for 4,971 acres or 64% of the area surveyed. ƒ English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) were the invasive species with the most cover on the lands where they were found (10-20%, 5-14%, and 1-32%, respectively). ƒ PP&R natural areas inventory data indicate that 98% of the parks open space surveyed contains at least some invasive plants. ƒ Levels of invasive plant infestation are relatively low in 37% of parks land and these areas are in good to healthy condition. ƒ Invasive plants comprise 13-40% of our natural area vegetation, which amounts to 1,039 – 3,107 acres of invasive plants in City parks. o Desired Future Conditions – PP&R staff have developed desired future conditions for approximately one-third of the natural area and hybrid parks (see Table 4). Desired future conditions describe the vegetation trajectory for the natural area. The community and/or stakeholders are involved in the development of desired future conditions, which help guide management decisions within parks land. x Urban Forest Management Plan (2004) – This plan describes all of the existing bureaus, plans, and programs that relate to urban forest management. It outlines the strengths and weaknesses of urban forest management within the City and it makes recommendations for additional coordination, documentation, preservation, reforestation, education, incentive programs, funding, and regulation. This plan identifies five types of urban land environments with public natural areas and stream corridors representing 16% of the land base within the City. One of the seven objectives outlined by this plan is to control invasive plants because they are a threat to the ecological integrity of natural areas and stream corridors. It states that controlling invasive plants should be fulfilled in order to reach the goal of maintaining and restoring healthy habitats. x Urban Forest Action Plan (2007) – This action plan was developed by an interbureau team as a follow up to the 2004 Portland Urban Forest Management Plan. This plan outlines goals, outcomes, and prioritized actions selected to implement the Urban Forest Management Plan. One of the three goals developed by this action plan is to “manage the urban forest to maximize community benefits for all residents of the City”. One outcome of this goal is improved watershed health. The current selected action is for PP&R to reduce the extent of the invasive plant problem within parks natural areas. One of the high priority actions identified to reach this outcome is to increase canopy and shade in natural areas and along streams. One of the medium priority actions is for BOP to revise the Portland plant lists. x The IPM program provides PP&R employees with an overview of integrated pest management principles and specific policy-based direction for implementing those principles. The IPM program is one of the major strategies used by PP&R to maintain park lands. The IPM outlines a variety of pest management methods used by PP&R such as design and plant selection, cultural practices, biological controls, and naturally derived and synthetic pesticides. This document outlines criteria for choosing the correct management method for a certain site and it outlines the licensing, training, procedures, safety measures, and emergency responses for pesticides use. The PP&R IPM guidelines have been reviewed by NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service) and determined to meet the federal ESA 4(d) rule exemption. x Weed Management Guidelines – PP&R staff have developed species specific management information to control the following species: garlic mustard, false brome, yellow flag iris (Iris pseudocaris), and purple loosestrife. These weed management guidelines provide information about the identification, ecology, and the most effective control methods for each species. x Street Trees –The urban forestry group maintains a list of approved street trees for planting within the right of way. They also issue permits for planting street trees and for removing trees on public and some private properties. x Protect the Best Weed Management Program – This program focuses on preventing damage from weed infestations in the most pristine habitat in PP&R natural areas. This is a preventative strategy that reduces future expenditures by stopping weed infestations before they become the dominant plant community within a given area. The criteria for selecting sites was based upon those areas that received a “healthy” or “good” designation in the PP&R natural areas vegetation survey and/or those areas deemed as a unique habitat type. This is the first year of program implementation and PP&R has received $254,000 to hire five botanical technicians to manage 725 acres of high priority areas. The goal will be to maintain “healthy” areas, convert “good” areas to “healthy”, and convert “fair” areas to “good” condition. This program has been funded by FY2007-2008 money allocated by City Council. x Volunteer programs – PP&R hosts volunteer work parties in the natural areas parks. They offer community group service projects, a service learning program for students, and Saturday work parties at the following parks: Marshall Park, Dickinson Park, Powell Butte, Errol Heights, Woods Memorial Natural Area, South Portland Riverbank, Terwilliger Wildlands, Tideman Johnson Park, Springwater Corridor, Hoyt Arboretum, Oaks Bottom, Elk Rock, Forest Park, and Mt. Tabor. These Saturday work parties focus on invasive plant removal, replanting native species, and other site specific activities. PP&R also partners with other groups, such as Forest Park Conservancy (Friends of Forest Park and former No Ivy League) and West Willamette Restoration Partnership (staffed by TRLC) on volunteer work parties and land stewardship efforts. The Parks volunteer coordinators also oversee a 15 person student work crew which removes invasive plants for eight weeks each summer. x IPM Enhancement Trials - These trials examine the many ways that unwanted weeds and invasive plants can potentially be managed by methods other than traditional herbicides. These trials are carried out in plots and target sites in various developed and natural area parks. This study will allow us to collect information about the effectiveness, feasibility, and long term impacts of these methods, as well as determine best management practices when certain herbicides are used. The trial report should provide useful information about alternative methods and materials that can be exported to park staff, other public agencies, and the general public. x Wildfire Risk Reduction Project – Natural areas, stream corridors, and open spaces pose a fire hazard at the wildland-urban interface. Large areas of highly flammable, non-native vegetation are present on steep slopes near homes and businesses adjacent to these areas. Stands of dead trees and vertical ladder fuels are increasing in areas where fires have been intentionally limited through suppression. For these reasons, the risk for a catastrophic wildfire is increasing. Action is needed to remove the build up of combustible fuels in the Portland wildland-urban interface to minimize the risk of catastrophic fire for people, homes, businesses, and park resources. FEMA is providing funding through the Oregon Department of Emergency Management and the Portland Office of Emergency Management, to assist the City to educate and partner with the public to reduce these fuel loads and hazardous conditions. PP&R City Nature, BES, and Portland Fire & Rescue work together to coordinate project planning, public involvement, and on the ground work. Initial efforts targeted three natural area parks: Forest Park, Powell Butte Nature Park and two segments of the Willamette Escarpment (Oaks Bottom and Mocks Crest). This project started in 2006 and will continue through 2009 removing invasive species from approximately 500 acres of natural areas.

Bureau of Environmental Services

BES provides Portland residents with watershed planning, water quality protection, wastewater collection and treatment, stormwater management, and sewer installation services. There are five work groups that operate under the Office of the Director: watershed services, pollution prevention, engineering services, wastewater services, and business services. Watershed services, the watershed revegetation program (part of engineering services), and the wastewater group provide land management oversight.

The 2005 PWMP identifies actions for watershed health through the development of watershed health goals and objectives. The PWMP outlines four goals for defining watershed health: hydrology, physical habitat, water quality, and biological communities. Implementation of the invasive species strategy meets the following goals and objectives: x Physical habitat - Protect and improve aquatic, riparian, terrestrial, and floodplain habitat quality. x Water quality - Protect and improve stream temperatures. x Biological communities: o Implement watershed actions to maximize the persistence of native fish and assist with species recovery and population productivity by protecting and improving habitat and water quality. o Terrestrial wildlife and vegetation – protect and restore the composition and structure of native vegetation communities and reduce populations of non-native plants. Invasive plant management is an action that protects and improves aquatic and terrestrial habitat quality. Invasive plant removal and native revegetation within riparian areas improve stream temperature, which improves dissolved oxygen levels and protects ecological health. These actions also facilitate species recovery and sustainability of native fish and aquatic organisms as well as terrestrial wildlife and vegetation. The revegetation strategy outlines invasive species removal as a key action needed to meet watershed goals. This report was developed in response to Resolution 36360; however, it is also consistent with the long term tasks for additional program development as outlined in the PWMP. For example, this report facilitates inter-bureau collaboration on a project that improves watershed health. This strategy report also establishes priorities for vegetation management that can be incorporated into future revisions of the PWMP.

The PWMP guides the work of more than twenty BES staff within the watershed services division. These staff are divided into four watershed groups: Johnson Creek, Fanno/Tryon, Columbia Slough, and the Westside Streams/Lost Creeks watershed (formerly the Willamette Watershed). The watershed groups seek funding from internal City sources and external grants sources to implement water quality enhancement and habitat enhancement projects. Most of the habitat enhancement projects involve revegetation, which includes non-native plant removal and re-planting with native species. In addition, each watershed group coordinates with other government agencies (such as ODA, Multnomah County Drainage District, East and West Multnomah SWCD), non-profit organizations (such as TRLC, SOLV, Friends of Trees), watershed councils (Columbia Slough, Fanno-Tryon, and Johnson Creek), parks (Fanno Parks, City of Portland, and State of Oregon), and neighborhood groups (such as Friends of Tryon State Park, Friends of Vermont Creek, Portland Community College) to provide outreach, education, and funding for implementing invasive plant removal and natural areas management. Because the watershed programs seek different sources of project funding each fiscal year, the amount of funding and staff time spent on invasive species varies annually. However, as an example, in FY2006- 2007, the Fanno/Tryon Watershed Group contributed over $100,000 (approximately 70% on control and 30% on education) to invasive plant projects in the community. In addition, during FY2006-2007, the Westside Streams/Lost Creeks, Johnson Creek, Fanno/Tryon, and Columbia Slough watershed groups funded a total of $1.4 million dollars in invasive plant removal and revegetation efforts through projects implemented by the BES Revegetation Team. In addition to these funds, the BES Watershed Program provides grant funding to community groups through the Community Watershed Stewardship Program. This program funds projects up to $10,000 to schools, churches, businesses and other community organizations for projects that protect and enhance watershed health at the local level. Many projects involve invasive plant removal and native revegetation.

The BES Revegetation Program plans, designs, and implements watershed revegetation projects on public and private lands throughout the Portland metropolitan area. Between 1996-2002, this program planted over 1.6 million native plants on over 1,500 acres. During the FY2006-2007, the Revegetation Team was actively managing 1,230 acres of land. Each fiscal year, the team takes on a minimum of 70 acres of land for their five year invasive plant removal and revegetation program. Over the past three years, the program has averaged 320 acres of new revegetation sites each year. Management activities include site assessment, planning and design, growing native plant stock, installing natives (seed, emergent plugs, shrubs, and trees), removing invasive plants, monitoring, and conducting ongoing follow up site maintenance. Most sites are managed for a minimum of five years to provide sufficient invasive plant control and allow the native plants to become established. Site selection is based upon available funding and sources include capital improvement projects, operating funds, private landowner agreements, partnerships with businesses, interagency funding and agreements, and grants. Currently, the Revegetation Program does not have an annual budget on which to operate; it is dependent on soliciting and receiving outside funding from partnerships to fund invasive control and native revegetation projects. For example, PP&R provides $125,000 annually for the BES Revegetation Team to manage invasive plants and revegetate with native plants on approximately 1,000 acres of parks land.

The BES Revegetation Program budget is over $2 million annually; however, most of these funds cover stormwater facility management, Grey-to-Green tree planting efforts, and CIP revegetation projects. Thus, BES staff operate as a public-enterprise where program staff time and other costs (vehicles, rent, etc.) are captured by revenue- generating projects. However, approximately one quarter of the operating budget ($500,000 to $750,000 each year) is used to fund Revegetation Program initiated projects. The source of these funds has varied since program inception and has included EPA grants, CIP program, non-operating funds, and the DEQ state revolving fund loans. The current funding source is a DEQ loan which will need supplementation from other sources starting in fiscal year 2010 in order to maintain current levels of program service.

BES owns approximately 375 properties which total almost 550 acres. BES owned parcels include land purchased to alleviate flooding, protect water quality within riparian areas, and accommodate capital improvement infrastructure (sewer) projects. The BES Wastewater Group manages 300 sites, but not all of these are owned by BES; some of these sites consist of easements and right –of ways over sewer lines. This group has annual operating funds that provide approximately $300,000 to PP&R and approximately $20,000 to the Revegetation Team for vegetation management on these 300 sites. In addition to annual maintenance, when capital improvement projects, water quality enhancement projects, and/or habitat enhancement projects occur on BES owned or managed parcels, then revegetation is typically incorporated as part of these projects.

The BES Stormwater Collection System Operations and Maintenance Group (within the Wastewater Group) oversees publicly owned stormwater management facilities. The BES Watershed Revegetation Program manages vegetation on 360 acres of stormwater management facilities, which include green streets and bioswales. In FY2006-2007, BES spent $522,442 on the vegetation maintenance for these facilities. The BES Pollution Prevention Group has a Stormwater Group with a maintenance inspection program dedicated to tracking the condition of privately owned stormwater management facilities. These staff provide guidance on vegetation management including invasive plant removal in accordance with City code Chapter 17.38 Drainage and Water Quality and the requirements of the Portland Stormwater Management Manual.

BES education and outreach staff cover invasive plant removal and native revegetation topics. The BES communications group employs two full time environmental educators who implement watershed health classroom and field trip programs for K-12 school and camp groups. Several of the educational programs teach students about invasive and native plants including such topics as identification, removal, vegetation functions, restoration techniques, and maintenance. These two BES staff interact with approximately 1,000 students per year and each student visits a site multiple times per year in the ‘adopt a site’ program. For the past and present fiscal year, BES and PP&R have split the funding to pay for a volunteer coordinator who works on invasive plant removal and revegetation projects with schools and community groups.

Water Bureau

The Portland Water Bureau is responsible for the operations that deliver high quality drinking water to 540,000 citizens within the Portland city limits and an additional 263,000 people through wholesale water providers in the metropolitan area. The primary water source is the Bull Run watershed, which is located approximately 26 miles east of downtown in the Mt. Hood National Forest. The watershed is located within the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit (BRWMU), a 94,070-acre area closed to public entry under special Congressional legislation known as the Bull Run Act. The City owns and manages approximately 2,580 acres of land in the Bull Run water-supply drainage and owns a total of 4,760 acres within and directly adjacent to the BRWMU. Under the terms of an interagency agreement with the Forest Service, the City is responsible for maintenance of 151 miles of roads on City and Forest Service land within and directly adjacent to the BRWMU.

Most of the 4,750 acres of the Bull Run watershed are in pristine condition with very few invasive species. However, invasive species are becoming established along the roadsides; therefore, in 2005 the Water Bureau hired a consultant to inventory the invasive species in the roadway. The protocol for this inventory involved recording invasive species found within each 0.1 mile segment of the roadside. While the inventory determined that non-native species were found throughout the roadsides, only 35% of the 128 roadway miles surveyed contained target invasive species. The most common invasive species found were Scot’s broom, big trefoil, thistles, and Himalayan blackberry. See Table 3 for more results.

In addition, the Water Bureau also owns approximately 900 acres of land within the City, where they manage approximately 150 sites with reservoirs, water tanks, and/or surrounding open space. Mt. Tabor reservoir is jointly maintained by the Water Bureau and PP&R. Of the total park sites, roughly 75% are maintained by PP&R. The Water Bureau currently employs 23 FTE staff to manage land and facilities in the Bull Run. Additional staff are dedicated to landscape maintenance surrounding in town sites and they remove invasive plants from these properties as much as possible with existing staff and budgets. The Water Bureau has recently hired one full time employee to manage Water Bureau property at Powell Butte. Invasive plant removal will be a primary task for this staff.

The Water Bureau has also evaluated the presence of invasive species on a cross section of their 120 sites in town. They worked with BES staff to use aerial photographs and site visits to quantify the percent of site coverage by Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, reed canarygrass, and clematis. These results indicate that approximately 223 acres contain invasive plants. The percent cover of invasives varies on these sites. In other words, blackberry may be present over three acres; however, it may only provide the vegetative cover for 30% of that acreage. These species cover approximately 62 acres of the in town site acreage. The inventory included open space adjacent to tank and pump sites and sites with mechanical buildings and garages. This inventory did not include groundwater well sites and some larger sites that would require more substantial survey efforts, such as Kelly Butte and Washington Park. The inventory did not include conditions at Mt. Tabor because those were covered in the PP&R Natural Areas Inventory.

Over the last year, the Water Bureau has treated two of its sites located in the Sandy River basin. The bureau has co-hosted three volunteer ivy removal events at its Dodge Park facility in the Sandy River Wild and Scenic Area, and is planning two more events for 2008. Treatment has focused on bureau owned land on the west side of the Sandy River, across from Dodge Park. Approximately 200 conifers and hardwoods have been treated in the riparian zones along the river. Bureau maintenance crews have also removed English holly (Ilex aquilifolium), English ivy, and blackberries in Dodge Park, and on the bureau’s 35 acre Lusted Hills Water Treatment Facility. The Water Bureau is also participating in the development of the Sandy Watershed Invasive Species Plan with a group comprised of non-governmental organizations and federal, state and local government agencies with interests or land ownerships in the Sandy River basin.

The Water Bureau is currently developing a Habitat Conservation Plan to address the impacts of the Bull Run water supply system on threatened salmon and steelhead. One of the mitigation strategies outlined in this document will be to establish riparian easements on approximately 425 acres of private land adjacent to the Sandy River. The Water Bureau will also control invasive plants on those easements to promote the growth of native vegetation. The plan is currently being developed and implementation will start in the fall/winter of 2008-2009.

Bureau of Planning

BOP provides land use planning services to guide the policies and practices of growth and development within the City of Portland. BOP develops zoning codes, works on specific planning projects, and operates ongoing programs such as annexations, district planning, economic development planning, environmental planning, historic resources, infill design, and urban design.

The following land use programs and planning documents address invasive plant species within the city:

x The City Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies (October 1996 revision) – This citywide planning document includes a goal to maintain and improve the quality of Portland’s water and land resources. Invasive plant removal implements many of the policies and objectives stated for land resources even though these actions are not specifically described in the report. As described in Chapter 1 of this report, the presence or absence of invasive plant species directly relates to fish and wildlife habitat quality. Therefore, this invasive plant strategy is consistent with implementation of the following policy and objectives as stated in the current comprehensive plan: o Regulate drainageways to conserve and enhance these areas for use as wildlife corridors and to provide wildlife habitat characteristics such as food, water, cover, breeding, nesting, resting, or wintering areas. o Protect, enhance, preserve, and/or conserve habitat within eight special areas to recognize unique land qualities for these habitats. o Use natural resources acquisition, impact avoidance, and mitigation to balance the conservation of significant natural resources and urban growth activities. o Conserve wetlands, riparian areas, water bodies, and significant upland areas by protecting buffers. o Encourage enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat throughout the City. o Develop natural resource management plans. x Native, Nuisance, Prohibited Plant Lists and adjunct lists in plan districts – The City has developed lists of native, nuisance, and prohibited plants. A native plant is a species that was likely found historically (prior to European settlement) in the Portland area. The nuisance plant list includes plants that are considered harmful to humans and plants that have a tendency to dominate plant communities. The nuisance and prohibited plant lists define species that cannot be used in required landscapes within City limits (when the site is being reviewed for permits). x Environmental Overlay Zones (Ezones) – The City has designated areas to protect natural resources and functional values. Chapter 33.430 of the Portland Zoning Code outlines the types of activities within Ezones that require a land use review. Nuisance and prohibited plants cannot be installed in Ezones; mitigation options include nuisance and prohibited plant removal and native revegetation at a specified replacement ratio (typically equal to half of the area encroached); resolving violations may require removal of nuisance and prohibited plants; and temporary erosion control seeding must use 100% weed free sterile seed. The City contains 19,643 acres of land (acreage includes some portions of the Columbia River) within designated Ezones. x Greenway Overlay Zones – These zones were developed to implement the City’s Willamette Greenway responsibilities as required by ORS 390.310 to 390.386 and Metro Title 3. All landscaping plans must comply with the native plant requirements outlined in the Willamette Greenway Plan; herbicide application in the greenway requires a land use review (unless it is part of ongoing maintenance); mitigation requirements include native plantings; and nuisance and prohibited plants cannot be installed in greenway overlay areas. The City contains 3,711 acres of land within designated Greenway Zones; however, some of that land includes a portion of the Willamette River. x Landscape Code – City code chapter 33.248 outlines requirements for mitigation and restoration plantings. These requirements include specifications for the plant sources, materials, installation, irrigation, monitoring, and reporting to BDS. Nuisance and prohibited plants are not allowed to be used for required landscaping as part of a building permit application. x Coordinated efforts on wildfire reduction – BOP has been working with BES and PP&R on vegetation management efforts to reduce or minimize wildfire hazards associated with non-native understory vegetation in natural areas that can facilitate the spread and intensity of fires. x Natural Resource Inventory Vegetation Mapping Project (2005) – The data from this project document that there are 32,162 acres of herbaceous, shrub, woodland and forest vegetation within the 92,000 acre City limits. This inventory only included vegetated areas greater than 0.5 acre in size and within a quarter mile of rivers and streams, Ezones, and resource areas included in Metro’s inventory of regionally significant riparian corridors and wildlife habitat. Thus, the actual vegetated acreage within the City is larger than this value.

Bureau of Development Services

The BDS Land Use Services Division evaluates how land is used and how buildings are built to ensure that projects are consistent with the land use plans developed by BOP. BDS also works closely with BOP to develop or revise the zoning code to ensure that changes can be implemented as written and to evaluate the costs associated with implementation. BDS helps citizens research the plans and zoning affecting their property and determine whether land use reviews and/or building permits will be required for their projects. Upon plan submittal, BDS staff (planning staff, building code staff, engineers, etc.) review the permit application to determine consistency with City codes. Following authorization, BDS staff conduct inspections to ensure public health, safety, and overall permit compliance.

BDS Land Use Services has four staff that conduct land use reviews in Ezones and greenways. In 2007, these staff reviewed 68 land use applications for parcels that contain Ezones and greenways. After permit issuance, compliance with the environmental and greenway code is determined by one of four site inspectors employed by BDS.

Portland Development Commission

The mission of the PDC is to bring together resources to achieve Portland’s vision of a diverse sustainable community with healthy neighborhoods, a vibrant urban core, a strong regional economy, and quality jobs for all citizens. They provide assistance on housing projects, facilitate neighborhood revitalization, and retain and expand existing businesses while recruiting new companies to the area.

PDC owns, manages, and leases property as part of their land re-development programs. The land ownership base is constantly in flux and their property database is updated as needed. Based upon summer 2007 data, PDC owned, managed, or leased 231 properties (167 acres). An aerial photograph analysis indicates that approximately 53 PDC properties encompassing 63.85 acres contain open space. The land use on these properties consists of approximately 15 acres of mowed lawn, 34.78 acres of lawn mixed with trees, blackberries, or landscaping, 7.26 acres of parks, and 5.7 acres of riparian areas.

PDC open space consists of landscaped areas and natural areas, so they implement two different types of land management. PDC manages landscaped areas in accordance with City code 29.20.010 for vegetation maintenance which states that lawn must be mowed to a minimum height of 10 inches. PDC leases four sites (36 acres) and manages one site, which they hire sub-contractors to maintain free of invasive plants: a mitigation site on the East Bank Esplanade adjacent to the RiverEast Center and four Cascades Station parcels. In FY2006-2007, PDC spent $27,965.62 on contractor fees to manage natural areas and $19,862.30 on contractors to maintain landscaped areas.

Portland Office of Transportation

The mission of PDOT is to plan, build, manage, and maintain an effective and safe transportation system that provides people and businesses access and mobility. PDOT includes several internal operating groups which include maintenance, system management, engineering and development, operating, capital improvement, and support services.

Within PDOT, Maintenance Operations conducts street preservation, traffic maintenance, street cleaning, sidewalk preservation, structural maintenance, emergency services, sewer repair and cleaning, and stormwater facility maintenance. These functions ensure that our transportation system is operating effectively and safely by implementing ongoing maintenance and emergency response. Within Maintenance Operations, the Street Cleaning Section manages open space features as part of their operations.

PDOT is charged with preserving the public investment of over $6.4 billion in transportation facilities and 1.5 billion in sewer and stormwater infrastructure by inspecting, cleaning, maintaining, and repairing all transportation and sewer related infrastructure within the City of Portland. Maintenance Operations currently employs 416 full time employees and has a $55 million budget. Within the Street Cleaning budget, approximately $74,000 is spent annually on vegetation management within the right of way. There are currently ten staff who maintain Transportation Maintenance sites. In total, this staff manages 891 acres, located throughout the City, which includes unimproved roadsides (approximately 715 acres) and landscaped features (176 acres). Office of Management and Finance

OMF provides internal services to City bureaus. There are five sections within OMF: financial services, human resources, purchases, revenue, and technology services. The purchasing section oversees procurement and contracting for the City to ensure that contracts are fair and meet the City’s equal opportunity goals. Purchasing also provides guidance to ensure that purchases support and encourage the City’s commitment to sustainability. OMF primarily manages buildings, but they also track land ownership for the City so they maintain a list of which parcels are owned by which bureau. This list was generated approximately four years ago by sending a request to all bureaus to provide a list of parcels that they own. New parcel acquisitions are added when they arise on the Council agenda for purchasing. Tracking land ownership and determining who is responsible for site management is important for citywide management of invasive plant species.

Regional Programs

Local

West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District (contact Kate McQuillan)

The West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District (WMSWCD) is currently developing a long-term weed management plan. Current and previous weed management efforts have primarily been conducted by private landowners with technical assistance provided by WMSWCD staff. WMSWCD staff have implemented direct controls on approximately 30 acres. There are currently 1-1.5 FTE dedicated to weed management issues and this time is primarily dedicated to landowner outreach and education efforts. WMSWCD control efforts have primarily focused on knotweed, garlic mustard, and English ivy. The outreach program has formed successful partnerships with private landowners. Lack of infrastructure has prevented the implementation of large-scale control projects in the past; however, that may change with the new increase in county taxes, which help fund this organization.

East Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District (contact Lucas Nipp)

The East Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District (EMSWCD) does not have a long-term weed management plan; however, they have been working to actively manage knotweed and garlic mustard populations within their district. Previous weed control efforts relied upon grant funded projects; however, recent county taxes may allow alternative funding sources in the future. The EMSWCD has one FTE, one part- time employee, plus a portion of two other FTE’s dedicated to outreach and weed control efforts. EMSWCD utilizes contractors to implement herbicide applications as part of their weed control projects.

Johnson Creek Watershed Council (contact Greg Ciannella) The Johnson Creek Watershed Council does not have a long-term invasive plant management plan. This group pursues grant funded projects to implement control projects. The Council has one FTE dedicated to invasive species control for 220 acres of mostly privately owned land. The majority of the work is conducted by seasonal contractors (Americorps) who survey and treat knotweed, yellow-flag iris, false-brome, and garlic mustard. The Watershed Council also does outreach to private landowners about invasive plant issues and receives a good deal of support from the community.

The Port of Portland (contacts Larry Devroy and Carrie Butler)

The Port of Portland manages over 10,000 acres of land within the City of Portland. The Port has a Vegetation Management Plan that includes an invasive plant inventory and outlines weed control methods for their natural areas. In FY2006-2007, the Port dedicated over $400,000 to manage invasive species on their property.

Metro (contact Angie Kimpo)

Metro manages approximately 5,000-6,000 acres of open space. They have four scientists dedicated to land management and a portion of that time includes setting priorities for weed management efforts. Metro also employs rangers that implement weed control and native revegetation projects on Metro owned land. They also sub- contract some of their weed control efforts to private contractors.

Clean Water Services (contacts Astrid Dragoy and Peter Guillozet)

CWS is a public utility that regulates wastewater and stormwater to protect water resources in the Tualatin River Watershed. Similar to BES, CWS is funded by ratepayer dollars associated with stormwater and wastewater disposal fees. CWS also provides the regulatory oversight for stormwater treatment and stream buffer protection within new development, which is similar to BDS and BOP.

During the last two fiscal years, CWS has dedicated $70,000-100,000 to invasive plant control efforts. In addition to those funds, one full time staff is dedicated to invasive plant management. All weed control efforts are implemented by private contractors paid by the funds allocated for invasive plant control. The CWS staff member is responsible for determining weed control priorities, obtaining private landowner access permission, and overseeing contractors. CWS implements invasive plant control on both public and private property within the Tualatin River Watershed. While CWS does not have a written management plan, invasive plant control efforts over the last two years have been directed towards controlling high priority invasive plant species such as knotweed and garlic mustard. As part of their control efforts, CWS staff has compiled a geographic information systems database of the location of high priority invasive plant species. As part of their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, CWS provides regulatory oversight for the stormwater management systems in new development. As part of this program, CWS requires mitigation at a 1:1 acreage replacement ratio for any impacts that encroach upon buffer areas. In addition, designated stream and wetland buffers must be enhanced (non-native plant removal and native plant revegetation) as part of any new development even if the development does not encroach upon the designated buffer. These buffers are similar, but not equivalent, to the City of Portland Ezones and Greenway overlay. Applicants are required to submit monitoring reports to document permit compliance and CWS has one staff who dedicates one-half of their time (50% FTE) to inspection and enforcement of invasive plant removal and re- vegetation requirements in buffer areas.

Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation Department (contact Julie Reilly)

The Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District does not have an overall invasive plant management plan. Weed species management is prioritized through four species lists: 1. Active management list - these species are present and full eradication is desired 2. Opportunistic management list - includes such species as ivy and blackberry 3. Watch list – these species are not present at this time 4. Wish list - these species are present, but beyond the resources available to manage

These lists are reviewed approximately every three years or as circumstances warrant. There are 4 full-time staff managing approximately 800 acres of open space. Some sites require more invasive plant removal than others, and occasional collaboration with maintenance crews is necessary. The district also receives thousands of hours of volunteer work per year from corporate, school, scouting, and correctional groups.

North Portland Drainage Districts (contact Bruce McClelland) [Sandy Drainage Improvement, Peninsula #1 and #2, and Multnomah County #1]

The four North Portland Drainage Districts do not have a comprehensive management plan for invasive plants. There are 11 staff who spend approximately 800 hours on mechanical, chemical and cultural controls annually. The land managed within the combined districts totals approximately 10,000 acres. Most of this is private land, but some of this area is covered by easements and State law (Oregon Revised Statute 457) which allows the drainage districts access and land management authority. The drainage districts have an IPM program which prioritizes preferred weed control methods (mechanical, then biological, then chemical), but they do not have specific control information for particular species.

Water and Environment Services (contact Bob Storer)

Clackamas County Water Environment Services (WES) is a regional agency that regulates stormwater and wastewater within the Clackamas River watershed. WES has a land use planning and stormwater regulation process similar to CWS ; however, it does not have a separate program for invasive plant removal efforts. WES was considering a program to issue small grants to watershed councils and non-profit organizations for weed control efforts; however, that program funding may shift to fund a private property liaison to help landowners prioritize riparian restoration projects.

State

State of Washington, City of Seattle, and King County (information from web site5)

The State of Washington has a Noxious Weed Law that holds landowners responsible for controlling state designated noxious weeds on their property. There are monetary penalties assessed as civil infractions for having Class A-C species on site. These regulations are administered by the state noxious weed control board, the Washington Department of Agriculture, and County and District noxious weed control boards. These entities will send letters with warnings to property owners warning that if these Class A- C designated species are not removed within a certain time frame, then fines can be issued to offenders.

King County has a noxious weed control program developed to implement the state noxious weed law. This program is funded by land based tax assessments of $1.50 per parcel plus $0.09 per acre. Within King County, this generates 91.7% of the operating budget for the noxious weed control program which is $1,126,000 per year. The King County noxious weed control program employs 15 full time staff to implement controls and conduct education and outreach about noxious weeds. Within the state of Washington, 16 out of 39 counties have this land based tax assessment to fund programs that implement the noxious weed control law.

The City of Seattle has a 20 year strategic plan written by the Green Seattle Partnership. This document describes how the City will restore forested parkland by removing the invasive plants in the understory. This plan aims to restore and maintain 2,500 acres of forested parklands by the year 2025. The City of Seattle has decided to tackle this effort largely with volunteer efforts that restore 160 acres per year.

State of Oregon, Department of Agriculture (information from web site and staff Beth Meyer-Shenai)

ODA has a state designated list of noxious weeds that are used to prioritize control efforts. The state has a noxious weed strategic plan which provides a framework and overall direction for the coordination of noxious weed management to protect and restore Oregon’s natural resources. Specifically, this plan outlines the outreach and control priorities for weed management within Oregon. ODA has prioritized their control efforts to eradicate Class A species throughout Oregon and the agency receives federal dollars to implement these controls. Class B and T (target) species are the next highest control priorities. ODA has also implemented a spatial inventory to map the distribution of invasive plant species in Oregon. More information about the weedmapper program can be found at: http://www.weedmapper.org/index.html.

5 http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/noxious-weeds.aspx ODA has nine full time field staff working on invasive plant control projects, as well as three part-time staff conducting seasonal control in eastern Oregon, and three administrative staff performing program management, program assistant, and grant analyst responsibilities. In addition to the staff funded control efforts, ODA administers grant dollars to noxious weed control efforts throughout the state. In the 2007-2009 biennium, ODA will dedicate $2.3 million dollars in grant funded weed control projects throughout Oregon.

Oregon Parks and Recreation (contacts Noel Bacheller and John Cowan)

Oregon Parks and Recreation (OPRD) has an IPM program which outlines weed control policies and procedures. Overall, the state requires each district to establish its own weed management priorities and protocols. For example, each district has at least one staff member who is a certified pesticide applicator to facilitate weed control efforts.

ORPD staff includes 30 seasonal employees and 12 rangers. For the last two years, one of those seasonal employees has been dedicated primarily to mapping and controlling weeds. A current grant application, if approved, would allow another employee to do ERDD work within the Columbia Gorge area. Volunteer help is provided by a range of groups, from Boy Scouts to inmates, which probably contribute hundreds, if not thousands of hours of work. Of that time, a significant portion is devoted to invasive weed management.

ORPD also funds weed removal efforts through internal grant sources which are primarily lottery-funded, with some dollars generated by agricultural land rents and salmon license plates. These sources amount to approximately $500,000 per year for the entire Oregon Parks network and each district applies for these funds to implement control projects. For example, two years ago, the Columbia Gorge/North Willamette area received $50,000 for a hand-pulling crew and $75,000 for mowing equipment.

Department of State Lands (contact Randy Weist)

Department of State Lands (DSL) has a rangeland manage plan that describes management of medusahead as the highest priority for noxious weed control efforts because this species poses a significant risk to rangeland health, forage production, and site stability for native vegetation and wildlife. DSL also works with ODA and individuals who lease lands, on noxious weed control efforts on state owned lands. DSL manages over 600,000 acres of land in Oregon and they have a $63,000 annual budget dedicated to noxious weed control efforts. In some years, an additional $10,000 – 20,000 is sometimes allocated to weed control efforts from the rangeland improvement funds. In addition to these funds, one staff is dedicated to state owned rangeland management.

Federal Natural Resource Conservation Service (contact Kathy Pendergrass)

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) does not have a weed management plan that determines weed control priorities throughout Oregon. However, NRCS does dedicate money to land management and each local field NRCS office has a dedicated amount of money for this task. Each office utilizes the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQUIP) to allocate land management dollars to specific projects. In western Oregon, invasive plant removal is not typically the highest land management priority; however, in eastern Oregon, control of rangeland weeds is a higher priority. Some of the EQUIP money is also distributed to local SWCD’s and some of this money may be spent on invasive plant control efforts.

US Forest Service (contact David Lebo)

The US Forest Service has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the selected use of herbicides for invasive plant control in the Mt. Hood National Forest. The EIS allows herbicide use for weed control and implementation of an EDRR program for 208 areas within the Mt. Hood National Forest and the Columbia Gorge Scenic Area. The impacts of herbicide use on fish species are currently being evaluated, but plan approval is anticipated this winter. The EIS identifies high priority control species such as knotweed, false-brome, garlic mustard, and orange and yellow hawkweed. Even though the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit is located on Forest Service lands, the herbicide use proposed in the preferred alternative of this EIS does not cover Bull Run lands. Herbicide use will still not be allowed within this protected area.

Private/Other

PacificCorps Energy (contact Kendall Emerson)

PacificCorps Energy is currently developing a long-term invasive weed management plan for their wildlife habitat mitigation lands surrounding Merwin, Yalw, and Swift Reservoirs. This management plan should be completed by the end of 2008. Weed management efforts at Pacific Power focus on lands underneath transmission lines and specific Pacific Power owned lands in southwest Washington. Pacific Power employs two FTE plus two contractors to manage at least the 10,000 acres in southwest Washington. Recent control efforts have focused on removing Himalayan blackberry, tansy ragwort, Scot’s broom, and clematis. There are currently no annual operating funds dedicated to invasive management; rather annual funds come from a variety of project-specific budgets.

PacifiCorps (contact Eric Wirfs)

The PacifiCorps transmission rights of way are inspected annually by the operations department and approximately every three years by the vegetation management department. Vegetation management is prioritized based upon growth rates, line magnitude, and inventory results. Vegetation management follows an integrated approach which utilizes mechanical, manual, chemical, and cultural control methods. PacifiCorps’ vegetation management goal is to convert right of way vegetation to cover- type plant species. Cover type conversion uses selective herbicide applications to remove incompatible tall trees and other vegetation from the rights of way in order to establish a stable, low growing plant community. The low growing plant community will thrive and be able to out-compete tall growing plant species. The work is funded through operating budgets. Appendix E: Photos Photo 1

Japanese knotweed treatment area

Photo 2

Photo 1 depicts a knotweed infestation in a riparian area in the Catskill mountains in New York; note the knotweed stand density which is forming a monoculture and the height as compared to the adjacent trees; photo courtesy of Catskill Streams. Photo 2 depicts the Miles Place riparian area adjacent to the Willamette River where the BES revegetation team is treating a large patch of Japanese knotweed. Photo 3

Photo 4

Photo 5

Photo 6

Photo 3 depicts a site in North Portland near the NOAA building in 1996. Photo 4 depicts the site following blackberry removal. Photo 5 depicts the site in 2001 after planting native trees and shrubs. Photo 6 depicts the site in 2007; note the height of trees. Photo 7

Photo 8

Photo 7 depicts a native forested understory community; this type of habitat is present in approximately 37% of Forest Park. Photo 8 depicts the dominance of reed canarygrass in the understory at Stephens Creek. Photo 9

Photo 10

Photo 9 depicts the Mt. Scott Creek riparian area where the understory is dominated by Himalayan blackberry. Photo 10 depicts a forest understory dominated by false-brome in Clackamas County. Photo 11

Photo 12 from Invasive.org Photographer Victoria Nuzzo

Photo 11 depicts a roadside in NW Portland dominated by garlic mustard. Photo 12 depicts how garlic mustard can dominate the forest understory. Photo 13

Photo 14

Photo 13 depicts a slope dominated by Himalayan blackberry in north Portland. Photo 14 depicts a fallen tree that is covered with ivy. Photo 15

Tree of heaven

Seedlings

Photo 16

Photo 15 depicts a tree of heaven that is spreading seedlings in the north escarpment area in Portland. Photo 16 depicts clematis growing up trees on the slopes to Oaks Bottom. Note how the dead clematis biomass could cause a ground fire to be carried into the treetops and hop over to nearby homes. Photo 17 Photo 18

Treatment boundary

Photo 19

Photos 17-19 depicts the forested slopes on the east side of Oaks Bottom Park. Photo 17 depicts areas that have not been part of the recent BES revegetation treatment. Photo 18 depicts treated areas and Photo 19 depicts the treatment boundary. Photo 20

Photo 21

Photo 22

Photo 20 depicts a site near Beaverton-Hillsdale that was covered with Himalayan blackberry. Photo 21 depicts the site following blackberry removal and native re-vegetation. Photo 22 depicts the tree establishment three years after installation. Photo 23

Photo 24

Photo 23 invasive species that dominate this forested roadside forested in west Portland. Photo 24 depicts the outreach table at the Portland Home and Garden show in February 2008 Appendix F: Tables Table 1: Bureau Summary

Acres Owned/Managed Bureau Mission or Related Management Staff Activity Develop and maintain parks, natural resources, urban forest 11.5 for open so that parks and natural areas Parks & 7,000 open space; space parks; >103 are accessible to the public for Recreation 800 developed parks staff for developed, recreation, gathering places, hybrid parks solitude, and community building opportunities.

Provide Portland residents with watershed planning, water 550 owned; other Environmental quality protection, wastewater 20+ watershed projects on public and Services collection and treatment, staff; 8 revegetation private land stormwater management, and sewer installation services. Deliver high quality drinking water to 540,000 citizens within the Portland city limits and an 4,750 owned in Bull Run 23 Bull Run; 3 in Water additional 263,000 people (2,580 managed by town through wholesale water City); 900 in town providers in the metropolitan area. Provides land use planning services to guide the policies 2.8 Environmental Planning and practices of growth and Land Use Planning planners development within the City of Portland.

Evaluates how land is used and how buildings are built to ensure 4 staff review Development that projects are consistent with Land Use Oversight Environmental and Services the land use plans developed by Greenway zones BOP.

To plan, build, manage, and maintain an effective and safe Transportation transportation system that 891 21 provides people and businesses access and mobility.

To bring together resources to achieve Portland’s vision of a diverse sustainable community 1 staff manages Development with healthy neighborhoods, a 167 site vegetation & Commission vibrant urban core, a strong contractors regional economy, and quality jobs for all citizens

Provide internal services, such as financial, human resources, 1 staff manages Management and purchasing, revenue, and No open space property ownership Finance technology services to City by bureau bureaus. Table 2: Invasive Plant Strategy Goals and Actions

Strategy 10 year Goals (Objectives) 3 Year Work Plan Actions Goals Incorporate invasive plant management into the Portland Plan (formerly the Comprehensive Plan). Incorporate invasive plant management into the Portland Watershed Management Plan (PWMP) update. Incorporate invasive plant management into the Urban Forestry Action Plan update. Modify Greenway code to exempt herbicide application, when consistent with PP&R’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program, from Land Use review in Greenway Zone overlay. Develop citywide 4(d) rule exemption for vegetation Implement code changes to improve invasive management, similar to PP&R’s IPM Program exemption. plant management in the City of Portland. Evaluate City's program for cleaning equipment to prevent spread and new introductions. Update City's nuisance and prohibited plant lists to include distribution and invasion potential. 1. Program Ensure that recommended plant species are consistent in all Development City plant lists. Investigate feasibility of a local or regional weed law requiring private landowners to control new aggressive infestations. Evaluate potential ecological benefits, feasibility, and costs of code changes requiring invasive plant removal in conjunction with development, redevelopment and outdoor vegetation management requirements. Develop Desired Future Conditions (DFC) for PP&R to develop DFC for 15 natural areas and hybrid parks. all natural areas and hybrid parks. Develop habitat management plans for 15 PP&R to develop habitat management plans for 1-2 natural natural areas and hybrid parks. areas and hybrid parks per year. Seek funding for the following positions: operations maintenance horticulturist, Water Bureau invasive species coordinator, BDS Secure adequate funding for invasives enforcement staff with plant identification skills, BES staff for program through ongoing budget sources. Citywide invasive plant coordination, implementation of Early Detection Rapid Removal (EDRR) program, and implementation of outreach program, funds for PP&R protect the best program. Strategy 10 year Goals (Objectives) 3 Year Work Plan Actions Goals Develop a media strategy to inform the public about the issue and provide solutions and technical assistance for invasive species management. Partner with Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), Oregon Develop a media strategy to create a critical Invasive Species Council (OISC), 4 County CWMA, Oregon mass of informed and motivated citizens. Department of Agriculture (ODA), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), regional non-profit organizations, and media to provide information about upcoming volunteer efforts, trainings, and outreach opportunities. 2. Outreach, Work cooperatively with Oregon Association of Nurseries (OAN) Education, and Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) to enforce existing and regulations and develop outreach materials for gardeners. Coordination Reduce and/or prohibit sales of invasive Conduct outreach to gardeners to reduce trading of invasive species within Oregon. plants and purchasing invasive plants online. Develop a stakeholder outreach plan to help report illegal nursery sales. Participate in quarterly OAN and OISC, and monthly CWMA meetings. Coordinate with regional partners. Coordinate with other agencies including OISC, 4 County CWMA (and all members), and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Strategy 10 year Goals (Objectives) 3 Year Work Plan Actions Goals Work with the Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) and other stakeholders to determine how the City can provide additional technical assistance to landowners. Target outreach and education towards gardeners and to landowners with property adjacent to City natural areas. Add resources to the City's new invasive plant management web site, such as a reporting feature. Review City's existing invasive plant outreach materials for 2. Outreach, information gaps and develop pieces as needed. Education, Conduct and publicize visible successful removal projects. Implement an invasive species outreach and and Partner with TNC to offer EDRR workshop. education program. Coordination Offer invasive plant identification and control methods (cont) workshops to City staff, and potentially others. Support the expansion of the Backyard Habitat Certification Program. Establish 10 weed removal demonstration sites within the City of Portland. Continue ongoing BES programs in K-12 classrooms. Continue ongoing PP&R volunteer stewardship programs removing invasive plants and installing native vegetation. Partner with non-profits to participate in volunteer projects. Strategy 10 year Goals (Objectives) 3 Year Work Plan Actions Goals Update PP&R inventory data as needed to document coverage changes. Determine additional inventory needs to help Develop a database, reporting system, and conduct expert measure progress towards control. interviews to compile an inventory of the locations of species designated as the highest priority for control (A and B). Develop species specific management plans Develop species specific management plans for garlic mustard 3. Inventory on an as needed basis. and Japanese knotweed. and Prepare annual reports on the Document continuing efforts and strategic accomplishments in Assessment accomplishments and continuing efforts monthly and annual reports; evaluate the success of the 3 year implemented by the Invasive Species work plan in 2011. Strategy. Evaluate the need for a citywide invasive Hold invasive animal break out session at November 2008 animal strategy. Invasive summit. Identify research needs for implementing Hold break out session on research needs at November 2008 control methods. Invasive summit. Develop and implement an Early Detection Develop EDRR program. Rapid Response Program to prevent new invasions of Class A species and to reduce Control Class A and B species. the level of Class B species in the City. If feasible and cost effective, develop a work Evaluate the cost, feasibility, and bureau responsibility of plan to control vertical coverage of ivy and control/eradication of vertical coverage of ivy and clematis within clematis. City owned natural areas. 4. Invasive Protect the Best parks habitat by improving Protect the Best crews will remove invasive plants from 200-800 Species the ecological health score of 4800 acres of acres per year plus conduct monitoring and maintenance on Control PP&R natural areas. previously treated areas. PP&R Wildfire Risk Reduction program will remove invasive Remove invasive species from the canopy of plants from 30 acres per year and conduct ongoing maintenance 300 acres. of areas previously treated. BES Revegetation Program will remove invasive plants and re - Remove invasive species and revegetate 700 plant native species on 70 acres per year. acres. Implement revegetation plans where necessary, following invasive plant removal (section 4.6.4). Table 3: Invasive Species Surveyed on Bull Run Roadsides

Total Number of Total Feet Survey Percent Species Name Common Name 0.1-Mile Surveyed Miles Per of Total Segments Species Cytisus scoparius Scot's broom 134,727 25.52 260 31.11% Lotus uliginosus Big trefoil 110,078 20.85 210 25.42% Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle 66,405 12.58 128 15.33% Cirsium arvense Canadian thistle 48,319 9.15 93 11.16% Rubus armenicus1 Himalayan blackberry 41,164 7.80 79 9.51% Geranium robertianum Herb Robert 20,842 3.95 40 4.81% Centaurea pratensis Meadow knapweed 5,809 1.10 11 1.34% Centaurea maculata Spotted knapweed 3,112 0.59 6 0.72% Orange & meadow Hieracium spp. hawkweeds 2,081 0.39 4 0.48% Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed 528 0.10 2 0.12% Betula pendula2 White birch ------Cotoneaster sp.2 Cotoneaster sp. ------Ilex aquifolium2 English holly ------Lotus corniculatus2 Bird's-foot trefoil ------Phalaris arundinacea2 Reedcanary grass ------Prunus avium2 Sweet cherry ------Totals: 433,065 82.02 833 100.00%

1 Initially Himalayan blackberry was not counted so this number is likely underestimated. 2 These invasive species were noted in the survey but not quantified. Table 4: Portland Parks & Recreation Natural Area Inventory Data

Percent Total Master or Habitat Desired Future Ecological Health Property Natural Acres Management Plan Condition (1-5)1 Area Albert Kelly Park 12.09 12 map 4 - Poor April Hill Park 9.77 55 map 4 - Poor Habitat Management Plan, in Arnold Creek Natural Area 0.48 100 3 -Fair progress

Ash Creek Natural Area (Dickinson 5.20 100 map 3 -Fair Woods) Burlingame Park 5.42 38 5 - Sev Degraded

map - S. Portland Butterfly Park 1.07 100 Riverbank

Campfire Properties 20.28 100 3 -Fair Cathedral Park 22.53 15 Master Plan, in progress 5 - Sev Degraded Clark & Wilson 17.24 100 Forest Park Clatsop Butte Park 44.41 12 Master Plan, in progress Approved 5/08

Columbia Childrens Arboretum 28.87 37 Master Plan, 2003 4 - Poor

Columbia Slough Natural Area 164.09 100 draft text & map 4 - Poor

Columbia South Shore Trail 2.04 100

Cottonwood Bay 0.67 99 3 -Fair Council Crest Park 42.95 75 draft text and map 3 -Fair

Crystal Springs Rhododendron Conditional Use Master Plan, 9.49 30 Garden 1994

Dickinson Park 15.78 67 Master Plan, Dec. 2000 map 4 - Poor Percent Total Master or Habitat Desired Future Ecological Health Property Natural Acres Management Plan Condition (1-5)1 Area Duniway Park 14.03 32 4 - Poor East Delta Park 86.53 6 Eastmoreland Golf Course 138.26 4 Eastridge Park 3.50 52 map 4 - Poor Elk Rock Island 13.25 81 Master Plan, 1995 3 -Fair Errol Heights Property 14.29 79 Master Plan, 2006 map 5 - Sev Degraded Fanno Creek Natural Area 7.37 99 4 - Poor Habitat Management Plan, in Draft text & map, Foley-Balmer Natural Area 9.65 95 3 -Fair progress part of Tryon Creek Forest Heights Park 2.93 65 2 - Good

Natural Resource Management From Good to Sev. Forest Park 4557.88 90 map Plan, Feb. 1995 Degraded

Fulton Park 8.50 41 4 - Poor Gabriel Community Garden & 1.03 0 map Orchard Gabriel Park 89.41 30 map 4 – Poor Gentemann Property 68.49 100 draft text & map 3 –Fair Part of Marquam George Himes Park 31.69 96 4 – Poor NP Governors Park 5.45 100 4 – Poor Hamilton Park 10.49 25 Harbor View Property 2.84 100 4 – Poor Heron Lakes Golf Course 340.77 39 Holman Property 31.80 100 Forest Park 3 –Fair Hoyt Arboretum 169.88 42 Forest Park 3 –Fair Jackson Middle School 0.97 0 Habitat Management Plan, in Draft text & map, Jensen Natural Area 2.25 100 3 -Fair progress part of Tryron Creek Johnson Creek Park 4.52 55 3 –Fair Johnson Lake Property 15.20 100 4 – Poor Kelley Point Park 103.36 84 map 3 –Fair Percent Total Master or Habitat Desired Future Ecological Health Property Natural Acres Management Plan Condition (1-5)1 Area Kelly Butte Natural Area 23.34 92 3 –Fair Kerr Site 10.00 100 5 - Sev Degraded Kingsley D Bundy Property 5.04 96 3 –Fair Kingsley Park 1.13 100 Forest Park Leach Botanical Garden 15.22 57 Master Plan update, in progress draft text & map 4 - Poor Lents Floodplain 1.36 100 4 - Poor Lesser Park 8.40 100 4 - Poor Linnton Park 256.25 100 Forest Park 3 -Fair Lotus Isle Park 1.08 7 Lower Powell Butte Floodplain 42.77 100 Macleay Park 144.96 92 Forest Park 3 -Fair Madrona Park 8.78 96 5 - Sev Degraded Habitat Management Plan, Sept. Maricara Natural Area 17.25 75 Approved 5/08 3 -Fair 2008 Park & Trail Plan, May 1981; Marquam Nature Park 193.06 70 draft text & map Fair to Poor trail update 2006

Habitat Management Plan, in Draft text & map, Marshall Park 24.32 98 3 -Fair progress part of Tryon Creek

Mocks Crest Property 0.71 82 5 - Sev Degraded

Moore Island 7.36 100 4 - Poor Mt Tabor Park 184.98 62 Master Plan, 2000 map 4 - Poor Munger Property (includes Jefferson 14.82 91 5 - Sev Degraded St. Property) Coordinated Resource Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge 162.50 97 map 3 -Fair Management Plan, 1988 Park of Oaks Oaks Crossing 6.00 100 Bottom Wildlife 4 - Poor Refuge Oaks Pioneer Church & Park 1.31 0 map - Oaks Bottom Developed Percent Total Master or Habitat Desired Future Ecological Health Property Natural Acres Management Plan Condition (1-5)1 Area

Overlook Park 11.30 22 5 - Sev Degraded

Peter Kerr Property 3.11 100 4 - Poor Pier Park 85.00 15 Pittock Mansion Acres 54.94 91 Forest Park 3 -Fair Portland Heights Park 5.08 31 4 - Poor Conditional Use Master Plan, Powell Butte Nature Park 599.89 100 draft text & map 3 -Fair July 2003 map - S. Portland Powers Marine Park 13.97 98 4 - Poor Riverbank RedTail Golf Course 164.43 0 Park of Oaks Riverside Property 1.26 100 Bottom Wildlife 4 - Poor Refuge Rocky Butte Natural Area 17.71 98 draft text & map 4 - Poor

Rosemont Bluff Natural Area 2.16 100 5 - Sev Degraded

Ross Island Natural Area 30.09 0 4 - Poor

Sellwood Park 16.65 11 map - Oaks Bottom 5 - Sev Degraded map - S. Portland Sellwood Riverfront Park 7.09 37 5 - Sev Degraded Riverbank Natural Resource Management Smith and Bybee Lakes 121.30 100 Plan, 1990 Spring Garden Park 4.66 26 Master Plan, 2003

Springwater Corridor 203.36 0 map - S. Portland Stephens Creek Natural Area 4.73 71 Master Plan, 2003 4 - Poor Riverbank SW Terwilliger Blvd Parkway 96.53 100 draft text & map

SW Thomas & 53rd 2.81 30 4 - Poor

Sylvania Park 3.12 100 4 - Poor Percent Total Master or Habitat Desired Future Ecological Health Property Natural Acres Management Plan Condition (1-5)1 Area Tenino Property 1.66 100 4 - Poor Tideman Johnson Natural Area 5.91 100 4 - Poor Toe Island 0.47 99 Tryon Creek Headwaters 2.54 100 3 -Fair Washington Park 237.60 68 Master Plan, 1980s West Lents Floodplain 4.87 0 4 - Poor West Portland Park Natural Area 19.07 11 Draft text & map 3 -Fair Westmoreland Park 43.03 0 Master Plan, 2003 Whitaker Ponds Natural Area 14.63 97 Master Plan, May 2006 text & map (05/06) 3 -Fair

Wilkes Park 1.89 0 4 - Poor map - S. Portland Willamette Moorage 17.24 52 4 - Poor Riverbank map - S. Portland Willamette Park 26.26 14 Master Plan, 1980s 4 - Poor Riverbank draft text and map Woods Memorial Natural Area 34.13 94 Functional Plan, July 2000 4 - Poor (10/8/07) Wright Island 4.35 100 4 - Poor

1 Natural Area Parkland Vegetation Inventory. PP&R started conducting natural areas vegetation surveys in 2003. Table 5: Cost Summary1

Complete Costs Low Cost Estimate High Cost Estimate Action2 Eradication Staff Costs Invasive species coordinator to direct maintenance staff to implement 1 FTE Water Bureau $0 $75,000 invasive species control on 425 acres near the Sandy River and maintain high quality habitat in Bull Run (4,750 acres). Planner to develop policy and enforcement staff to help implement 1 FTE BOP/BDS $0 $75,000 existing and proposed policy. One to two staff to coordinate citywide invasive plant strategy 1-2 FTE BES $75,000 $150,000 elements described in 3 year work plan and 10 year goals. 1 FTE Operations Horticulturist to help incorporate invasive plant management into $75,000 $75,000 Maintenance Operations Maintenance practices/programs. Total Staff Costs unknown $150,000 $375,000 Control Costs Develop EDRR program and implement 200 acres of invasive species EDRR Program $70,000 $100,000 removal per year. Funds to implement controls on 425 acres near the Sandy River and Water Bureau $0 $100,000 maintain high quality habitat in Bull Run 4750 acres Operations Implement invasive species controls on 900 acres of right-of-way and $0 $25,000 Maintenance landscaped roadside features. Parks “Protect the $254,000 $254,000 Remove invasive species on 2,230 acres (~30%) of open space parks. Best” Program Wildfire Risk Remove invasive species on 30 acres per year plus maintain invasive $45,000 $75,000 Reduction Program species removal efforts on previously treated acreage

BES revegetation $100,000 $750,000 Costs needed to supplement BES revegetation program program Conduct 2-3 days of invasive species removal per week and 2-3 days AmeriCorps team $0 $40,000 of outreach and education per week. Estimated 2,500 acres per year of invasive species removal and revegetation. Total Control $50-154 $469,000 $1,344,000 Costs million3 $50-154 Total Program Costs million plus $619,000 $1,719,000 staff 1 This table does not include existing program costs. Rather, it outlines the additional staff and budget needs to implement Chapters 4 and 5 of this report. See Chapter 6 for the text that more fully describes this table. 2See text to explain cost range for each action 3 Estimate developed by BES Revegetation Team to eradicate invasive species and revegetate at a cost of $12,000 per acre. Table 6: Potential Funding Sources

Funding Source Action/Program Future Total Existing Budget Stormwater Property Grants Operating Requests for Ratepayer1 Tax Operating BES FTE for coordination $37,500 and strategy implementation

Operations Staff Maintenance $75,000 Horticulturist

Water Bureau $75,000 coordinator

Staff and Grey to Green $470,500 Control Efforts

Implementation $292,000 - Control of 3 year work $147,0001 $890,0002 Variable3 Efforts plan and 10 year goals

$470,000 – $292,000 - $949,500 – Total $37,500 $150,000 Variable3 617,000$ $890,000 $1,694,500

1This value assumes a $1 contribution by 25% of ratepayers; see Table 6. 2Estimate is based upon property tax fee of $1.50-2.50 per tax lot plus $0.09 per acre per year (or $1.53 – $4.68 per 0.3-acre average tax lot) 3Dollar amounts raised by grant programs vary. For example, in 2008, BES (and partners) secured $28,000 in grant funds for garlic mustard control from ODA. Table 7: Estimated Contributions Based Upon Participation and Single-Family Residential Utility Bills1

Amount of 1% 5% 25% Annual Participation Participation Participation Contribution $1 $5,900 $29,500 $147,500 $2 $11,800 $59,000 $295,000 $5 $29,500 $147,500 $737,500

1 Estimates are based upon 500,000 residential, single-family residential utility bills and do not include multi-family or commercial accounts. Including both would increase annual bills by approximately 100,000 bills. Table 8: Portland Parks & Recreation Natural Areas Vegetation Inventory Data

Low High Proposed Scientific Name Common Name Estimate Estimate Rank (acres) (acres) Hedera helix English ivy C 394.5 818.9 Rubus discolor Himalyan blackberry C 264.6 705.0 Ilex aquafolium English holly C 63.4 318.5 Clematis vitalba Old man's beard C 78.6 254.6 Crataegus monogyna English hawthorn C 63.0 185.5 Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass C 73.7 151.8 Geranium robertianum Herb robert C 14.2 143.3 Prunus avium Sweet pie cherry C 13.8 71.7 Prunus laurocerasus English laurel C 10.1 54.0 Cirsium arvense Canadian thistle C 5.8 48.9 Geum urbanum European avens C 8.9 39.4 Acer platanoides Norway maple C 8.8 38.1 Cytisus scoparius Scot's broom C 7.6 33.4 Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife B 1.2 30.3 Solanum dulcamara Bitter nightshade C 3.5 25.1 Dipsaucus fullonum Common teasel C 7.9 20.7 Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard B 1.2 20.5 Robinia pseudo-acacia Black locust C 4.3 19.8 Convolvulus arvensis Morning glory C 1.8 17.1 Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle C 0.5 15.7 Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace C 1.2 12.0 Senecio jacobea Tansy ragwort C 0.4 11.3 Arctium minus Common burdock C 0.9 9.4 Melissa officinalis Lemon balm C 0.8 8.4 Tanicetum vulgare Common tansy C 1.6 7.0 Buddleja davidii Butterflybush B 0.9 6.0 Vinca minor Periwinkle (small-leaf) B 1.3 6.0 Rubus laciniatus Evergreen blackberry C 0.5 5.4 Polygonum spp. Knotweed B 0.5 5.0 Conium maculatum Poison-hemlock C 0.5 4.4 Lunaria annua Money plant C 0.4 4.3 Convolvulus sepium Lady's nightcap C 0.6 3.0 Iris pseudacorus Yellow-flag iris B 0.5 3.0 Sisymbrium officinale Hedgemustard B 0.2 1.9 Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose C 0.2 1.7 Vinca major Periwinkle (large-leaf) B 0.4 1.5 Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed B 0.1 1.2 Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven B 0.1 1.1 Populus alba European white poplar B 0.4 0.9 Rosa eglanteria Multiflora rose C 0.0 0.5 PP&R Natural Areas Vegetation Inventory Data-continued

Low High Proposed Scientific Name Common Name Estimate Estimate Rank (acres) (acres) Daphne laureola Spurgelaurel B 0.0 0.3 Centaurea pratensis Meadow knapweed C 0.0 0.3 Polygonum coccineum Water smartweed B 0.0 0.0 Mentha pulegium Penny royal C 0.0 0.0 Solanum nigrum Garden nightshade B 0.0 0.0 Total acres 1039.2 3107.3 Appendix G: Figures

Appendix H: Goats Memo Memo

To: Invasive Species Coordination Project File From: Jennifer Goodridge, Environmental Specialist, Willamette Watershed Date: May 19, 2008 Re: Use of Goats for Invasive Plant Species Control

Several jurisdictions have recently used goats to control invasive plants. Goats can be used for invasive species suppression, however, as with most invasive species control methods, there are site specific situations where each method may or may not be appropriate. The following considerations should be evaluated to determine whether or not goats would be appropriate for invasive species control at a specific site:

x Goat feeding is not species specific. Therefore, they should not be used on a site that contains native herb or shrub species. Goat grazing would only be appropriate on sites where the entire understory is dominated by invasive species.

x Goats need to be fenced and monitored. Most goat rental companies provide fencing and monitoring and that cost is included with the cost of the goat rental. Some mechanized vegetation removal may be necessary in order to install the fences and this may not be included in the costs.

x Goat grazing is equivalent to mowing. Recent articles that report success with goat grazing, suggest that grazing can completely eliminate invasive species, however, this may not be accurate. According to the Nature Conservancy Weed Control Handbook, most invasive species removal requires some combination of mowing or grazing with herbicide application. The herbicide application is often necessary to kill the below ground reproductive structures.

x Because mowing/grazing does not completely eliminate most invasive species, this practice may be more appropriate for sites that need ongoing reduction of invasive species presence rather than elimination of the species from a site. x Goats are not appropriate for sites near railroad tracks or the freeway because if a fence breaks and goats get loose, this is a potential safety and liability issue. If there are transients near the site, this increases the potential for possibly fence damage. x Goats may be useful on sites where mowing equipment cannot access the site due to the presence of trees or steep slopes. However, chainsaws or other hand held equipment can be equally effective at vegetation removal in these settings. x Goats are not powered by gasoline and their wastes are biodegradeable, however, they are not completely carbon neutral because they must be transported to and from the site and their monitoring requires someone to live near the site in a camper. So a comparison of the amount of fuel required for mechanized clearing versus goats might result in equivalent amounts. x Livestock can cause erosion along streambanks so goats should not be used in riparian areas. While goats do not have as large of a footprint and impact as cows, when they are tightly fenced and penned for vegetation removal, they can still have an impact on riparian areas. x The cost of using goats is similar to using the BES Revegetation Team for invasive plant removal. The exact cost of using goats varies depending upon site conditions such as terrain and the treatment needed, however, the recent project in Wilsonville cost approximately 1,000 per acre. Metro estimated that for complete ivy removal using goats, the cost was approximately $1,000 per acre (in 2002) which did not include the cost of follow up herbicide application. Therefore, if the follow up cost of herbicide application is added to provide complete control, this adds approximately $200 per acre for a total cost estimate of $1,200 per acre. The BES re-vegetation team estimated the approximate cost for a work crew to cut and apply herbicide is $1,300 per acre. x According to Caprine Restoration, Inc. goats cannot be brought on site during colder and wetter months. x There is the potential that goats could transport weed seeds to a site. x In 2006, BES, Operations Maintenance, Parks, and Caprine Restoration Services investigated the feasibility of using goats for invasive species removal projects in the City. They concluded that the site must be very large to make it worth the time and effort to bring the goats. The City found that they had few, if any, sites that were large enough to meet the needs of the goat herding industry once all of the above site constraints were combined with the site review. A May 2008 conversation with Caprine Restoration Services further clarified that sites need to be approximately 50 acres to feed the goat herd; a few sites could be combined to reach the 50 acre total. The most recent articles published indicate that the King County metro area in Washington and the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee have had success using goats for invasive plant control. However, my inquiries to nearby local government agencies have indicated mixed results. Clean Water Services (CWS) contracted with Caprine Restoration Services to provide invasive plant control. After several attempts to get the company to bring the goats to the site, CWS finally ended their contract and hired a chainsaw crew to mow the site and it was completed in two days. Similarly, Metro used goats for weed control at three different sites in 2002. They found that the costs were high, however, the public response was good because people liked seeing goats in their neighborhood. However, this public outreach message should also be evaluated prior to using goats for invasive plant control. We do not want to portray using herbicides as bad because they are still the most effective tool for removal of some invasive plant species.

In summary, when selecting methods for invasive plant control, one must evaluate existing site conditions, costs, and the project goals. This memorandum has summarized some of the considerations for whether or not to select goats for invasive plant control.